COPYRIGHT

Greater London Authority March 2012

Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen's Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458

Copies of this report are available from http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning

Comments on the new coverage and format of the Annual Monitoring Report are welcome and should be sent to:

Jörn Peters Senior Strategic Planner Development & Environment GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA

E-mail: jorn.peters@london.gov.uk CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KPI performance overview 6 Progress against new London Plan objectives 9 Conclusion 16

CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION Scope and purpose of the AMR 18 The London Development Database 19 The new London Plan and its Implementation Framework 20 Changes to KPIs 22

CHAPTER THREE PERFORMANCE AGAINST KPI TARGETS KPI 1 Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land 26 KPI 2 Optimise the density of residential development 29 KPI 3 Minimise the loss of open space 31 KPI 4 Increase the supply of new homes 36 KPI 5 An increased supply of affordable homes 39 KPI 6 Reducing health inequalities 42 KPI 7 Sustaining economic activity 43 KPI 8 Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market 44 KPI 9 Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available 47 KPI 10 Employment in outer London 48 KPI 11 Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market 50 KPI 12 Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services 52 KPI 13 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (public/private transport modal split) 54 KPI 14 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (zero traffic growth) 55 KPI 15 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (increased bicycle modal share) 57 KPI 16 Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys (increased passenger and freight transport on the Blue Ribbon Network) 58 KPI 17 Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values 60 KPI 18 Protection of biodiversity habitat 61 KPI 19 Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031 63 KPI 20 Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development 64 KPI 21 Increase in energy generated from renewable sources 66 KPI 22 Increase in urban greening 67 KPI 23 Improve London’s Blue Ribbon Network 68 KPI 24 Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm 70

CHAPTER FOUR OTHER RELEVANT PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS

Planning 72 Progress with SPGs, Opportunity Areas, Areas of Intensification, the Olympics and its Legacy 72 Responses to Major Applications and Development Plan consultation 76 London Planning Awards 84

Housing and Design 88 Housing provision annual monitor 88 Achieving an inclusive environment 127

Transport & Environment 132 PTAL Map 132 Crossrail Funding – Planning Obligations 133 Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal recommendations 134

CHAPTER FIVE OTHER CONTEXTUAL DATA SOURCES 139

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND LOOKING AHEAD 143 CHAPTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 This Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) provides information about progress made in implementing the objectives and policies in the London Plan published in July 2011. It does this by showing how London is doing against 24 indicators identified in the Plan. Although it is the eighth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the first supporting the new London Plan.

KPI performance overview

1.2 The following Table 1.1 summarises the performance against the 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), benchmark targets set out in Chapter 8 of the London Plan. It should be borne in mind that these benchmark targets are not policies; rather they are yardsticks of the desired direction and extent of change to help assess progress.

1.3 Performance is categorized as follows. For further details please see Chapter 3.

- Positive trend / target met

* Negative trend / target not met N/A Data insufficient to determine progress / trend

| Table 1.1 – KPI performance overview | |--------------------------------------| | KPI target | performance | comment | | 1 | Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land | + | Development on previously developed land still above target, but slight downward trend | | 2 | Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (Table 3.2) | - | Absolute development density has declined but the percentage not meeting the target has risen slightly | | 3 | No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development | + | Still some loss, but significantly less than in 2010 | | 4 | Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year | + | Completions below target, but increase in output compared to 2010 | | 5 | Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year | - | New affordable completions fell to 6,900 in 2010/11 but HCA reports record level of starts (16,300) | | 6 | Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women) | + | Difference in the anticipated life expectancy in identified regeneration areas has improved compared to the London average for both males and females. | | 7 | Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031 | - | Fall in proportion, but reduction in gap to UK average | | | Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years | Ratio of permissions to starts in excess of target and rising | |---|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------| | 9 | Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG | Release above target, but 2010/2011 London wide figures closer to benchmarks | | 10 | Growth in total Employment in Outer London | Slight growth just above pan London average, but rate slightly down compared to 2009 | | 11 | Reduce employment rate gap between BAME groups and the white population and reduce gap between lone parents on income support in London vs England & Wales average | Gaps in employment rate and lone parents on income support are reducing | | 12 | Reduce the average class size in primary schools | Increase in average class size, similar to UK wide trend | | 13 | Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head | Public transport use continues to grow, private car use continues to fall | | 14 | Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole | Car traffic declining | | 15 | Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026 | Cycle mode share on track to 2026 target | | 16 | A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 | Decrease in freight and also in passenger transport reflecting wider economic trends | | 17 | Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 | Share above target and improvement on previous year | | 18 | No net loss of SINCs | Still some loss, but significantly less than in 2009/10 | | 19 | At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 | Recycling/composting rate increasing and waste to landfill declining – but still far to go towards 2031 target | | 20 | Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic developments proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential development by 2016 and zero carbon in all development by 2019 | 2010 savings above staged targets for 2010 - 2013 | | | Production of 8550 GWh(^1) of energy from renewable sources by 2026 | Capacity installed in 2010 contributing towards 2026 target | |---|---|---| | 22 | Increase the total area of green roofs in the CAZ | N/A | New KPI, process of data provision still underway | | 23 | Restore 15km of rivers and streams(^*) 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 ((^*)defined as main river by the Environment Agency – includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance) | + | Good progress towards 2015 target, more uncertainty regarding 2020 target | | 24 | Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London | + | Reduction or no change in the proportion across designated heritage asset categories between 2010 and 2011 |

(^1) Figure has only become available after the publication of the London Plan and is based on data in the GLA’s Decentralised Energy Capacity Study Phase 2: Deployment Potential (Oct 2011). Progress against new London Plan objectives

1.4 The London Plan sets six strategic objectives to be delivered by its detailed policies. These are that London should be:

- A city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth
- An internationally competitive and successful city
- A city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods
- A city that delights the senses
- A city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment
- A city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities.

1.5 A variety of KPIs contribute to the performance measurement of each of the London Plan’s six objectives. These are shown in Table 1.2.

| Objective | Relevant KPIs | |-----------|--------------| | Objective 1 – meet the challenges of growth | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14 | | Objective 2 – support a competitive economy | 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 24 | | Objective 3 – support neighbourhoods | 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15 | | Objective 4 – delight the senses | 1, 3, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24 | | Objective 5 – improve the environment | 1, 3, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 | | Objective 6 – improve access/transport | 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |

1.6 The following provides a brief summary of the performance of the new suite of KPI targets against the new London Plan objectives.

Objective 1 – meet the challenges of growth

1.7 London is a growing city. The latest projections suggest that by 2031, its population may be 9.1 million and employment could grow to 4.7 million. Against this background, ensuring that London accommodates expected growth within its current boundaries without either encroaching on the Green Belt or having unacceptable impacts on the environment or quality of life in the capital requires the most efficient possible use to be made of the available land resource.

1.8 Thus striking the right balance between ensuring efficient use of land on the one hand, and respecting the character of neighbourhood and improving quality of life on the other is a key concern of London Plan policy. Looking at the density of new housing development in 2010/11, a complex picture emerges. The density of residential approvals (140 dwellings per hectare (dph)), was well below its 151 dph peak in 2007/8, but the density of new completions (136 dph), though lower than in 2009/10, was still above the 117 dwellings per hectare reported in 2007/8. The relatively high density of completions may reflect the relationship between a substantial pipeline of historic, high density approvals and a housing market which has been relatively slow moving in clearing them.

1.9 When compared to the densities suggested in the London Plan sustainable residential quality density matrix (see the Plan’s Policy 3.4 and table 3.2), 2010/11 saw 58% of units in schemes that exceeded the suggested maximum density level. As in previous years, this meant that less than half of approvals (rather than the 95% benchmark target) were within the appropriate density range for particular locations.

1.10 The Mayor’s 2011 London Plan and its associated draft Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) were published in the second half of 2011, so their impact on density has not been reflected in the current monitor. The new Plan puts greater emphasis on optimising rather than maximising output and, when finalised, the SPG will take account of advice from the Outer London Commission and independent research on the most effective ways of implementing this policy to achieve the Plan’s overall objectives.

1.11 London has tended to lag the rest of the country in feeling the effects of the recession on housing output. Though these effects were anticipated in AMR 6 it was only in 2009/10 that completions of conventional dwellings began to fall from their peak in 2008/9 (from 29,400 to 24,500). Output subsequently declined more rapidly – by a further 27% to 18,000 in 2010/11. This is well below the new 29,800 dwellings per annum long term monitoring target for this type of accommodation.

1.12 However, a substantial increase in new construction activity reported through the London Development Database (LDD) suggests that housing development here may already be recovering from the effects of the national recession. This is confirmed by independent analysis of private sector development which reports(^2) that “London construction starts in 2011 were 37% ahead of starts in 2010. This construction surge is expected to continue throughout 2012.”

1.13 As noted in AMR 7, the decline in approvals appears to be abating to a level (46,500) close to the long-term average over the last decade (48,000), and above that recorded for 2009/10 (43,800). London’s planning pipeline remains substantial with capacity for over 170,000 homes, approximating to almost five years’ housing need and approaching six years’ supply based on the new, higher provision target. The London planning system will have adequate capacity to address the requirements of a recovering housing market, and as, Berkeley Homes has noted, strategic land supply is no longer the main challenge facing housing development in London.

1.14 Resource constraints and more limited scope during the recession for partnership working with the private sector has meant that the national trend in affordable housing output began to bear heavily on London in 2010/11. Completions of conventional affordable homes peaked in 2008/9, falling back from 10,800 to 9,000 in 2009/10. This decline has continued, with output falling to 6,900 units in 2010/11. This represented 38% of all completions, slightly more than half of which were for social renting and the balance for ‘intermediate’ housing.

1.15 However, as with market housing, borough reports to LDD suggest considerable construction activity in the affordable housing sector during 2010/11. This is confirmed by Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) statistics on the homes it funds, showing that in 2010/11 16,300 affordable homes were started in London, the highest figure since monitoring began in 2004/05. Nearly 70% of these were social

(^2) Crane T. Quarterly Analysis: Sales. For residential market experts. Molior London, Development Research, January 2012. housing. Looking at the affordable housing investment as a whole (not just the new build part recorded through the planning process), 14,250 new homes were delivered in 2010/11. This is backed for the longer term by the forthcoming London Housing Strategy’s £1.8 billion / 55,000 unit investment programme over the four years 2011/12 to 2014/15.

1.16 Carefully targeted and coordinated investment among the most deprived communities living in the Plan’s areas for regeneration, and development of its designated opportunity and intensification areas provide particular scope to improve health and reduce health inequalities among Londoners, in particular the existing difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London. To build on this success and tackle spatial concentration of deprivation, the Mayor will work with strategic and local partners to co-ordinate the sustained renewal of areas of regeneration by prioritising them for neighbourhood-based action and investment.

Objective 2 – support a competitive economy

1.17 London fared similarly to the UK overall during 2008-09, with both enduring a deep and long recession. London began to emerge from this in 2009-10, with the process continuing into the first half of 2011. Now the recovery is well in train but it is likely to be bumpy, with households feeling squeezed due to job insecurity and relatively stagnant wages although price rises are likely to ease in 2012. These pressures have borne on the indicators measuring progress against the London Plan’s social and economic objectives in 2010/11.

1.18 Economic output fell by 6.5% from its mid-2008 peak to the third quarter of 2009. By the second quarter of 2011 it had recovered by 3.5% but it still remains over 3% below its pre-recession peak. On an annual basis, a positive outturn may be expected for 2012 and 2013 with GLA Economics’ latest forecast (dated November 2011) projecting output growth of 2.0 per cent in 2012 and 2.4 per cent in 2013. Employment is forecast to grow by 0.4 per cent in 2012 and by 0.4 per cent in 2013.

1.19 While the stubborn weakness of growth is of serious concern to policymakers, the impact on job losses has been remarkably small. The peak-to-trough fall in employment was 4.2% (209,000) from December 2008 to December 2009, but since then London has recovered most of this loss (+174,000). Compared with previous recessions (see Figure 1.1) the fall in employment in London was relatively small and not on the same scale as that recorded during the recession of the early 1990s when almost half a million jobs were lost.

1.20 London’s claimant count unemployment rate (4.8%) has remained below that for the UK since the start of the recession (see Figure 1.2). However it is 0.4 percentage points up on a year ago. The internationally defined unemployment rate in London increased by 0.4 percentage points in the three months to December 2011 to 10% and was up by 1.1 percentage points on a year earlier.

1.21 Between 2008 and 2010 the fall in the numbers employed in London (-3.8%) was rather more than that for the UK overall (-3.0%). But in London the burden fell disproportionately on part-time employment, down by 2.7% versus 1.0% in the UK overall. The fall in fulltime employment was hardly different in London: down by 4.2% versus a fall of 4.0% in the country as a whole. 1.22 The decline in employment between 2008 and 2010 was disproportionately high in the construction sector (-15%), in financial services & insurance (-8%) and in Administrative and Support Service Activities (-8% also). However, employment rose in the Public Administration (+5%) and education (+1%) sectors. Looking at the boroughs (see Figure 1.3), most saw a decline in employment between 2008 and 2010. Croydon lost over 11 per cent of its employment, Wandsworth nearly 9 per cent and Haringey, Richmond and Sutton all suffered declines of between 7 and 8 per cent. But there were a few exceptions to the general decline – Barking, the City and Hammersmith and Fulham saw rises in the range 0.2 per cent to 3.3 per cent.

Figure 1.1 Employment in London 1996-2011 (thousands)

![Employment in London 1996-2011](image)

Figure 1.2 Unemployment rate – London and UK 2008-2011

![Unemployment rate](image)

Source: ONS Objective 3 – support diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods

1.23 A key theme of the 2011 London Plan is the development of lifetime neighbourhoods as an essential contribution to Londoners’ quality of life. This new objective reflects the London Plan’s new policy area.

1.24 The London Plan recognises that while the best use should be made of development opportunities, a range of factors such as residential quality, local character, access to social infrastructure, open space, employment opportunities and public transport should be taken into account to realise high quality neighbourhoods where people want to live at all stages of their life. A wide range of key performance indicators contribute to the performance measurement of this objective.

1.25 The proportion of ‘Lifetime’ homes approved has fallen from 61% in 2008/9 to 57% in 2010/11. The proportion of approved new ‘wheelchair accessible’ homes has remained constant at close to 7%. The Mayor has underscored the importance he attaches to encouraging provision of Lifetime and wheelchair accessible homes by including detailed requirements for them in his new housing standards. These standards had not come fully into force during the period of AMR 8.

1.26 London is both getting younger and older. Latest population projections suggest that London’s 0-18 population is projected to increase by over 205,000 over the next 10 years. This expansion also coincides with the hardest squeeze on government finances in almost a century. Primary schools in particular are struggling to accommodate the rising demand for primary school places. The average class size in London has been increasing in all of the boroughs since 2005. To help respond to these pressures, the Mayor is encouraging the community to take steps to establish new schools.

1.27 Access to employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market such as BAME groups and lone parents have increased over the last years. This positive trend can be attributed to increased provision of infrastructure such as training and childcare facilities that have enabled people to go back to work, as well as a greater commitment from employers to recruit and sustain employment of local people in deprived areas of London where disadvantaged groups live.

Objective 4 – delight the senses

1.28 It is a key strand of London Plan policies that they seek to make the best of London’s heritage whilst welcoming the best of modern architecture, enhancing London’s green and open spaces and waterways. It has been an encouraging start for this new objective with most of the individual measures being positive - improving performance in bicycle use, reflecting the on-going investment in cycling initiatives by the Mayor and the second highest level of river restoration recorded (only 2007 was higher).

1.29 There has also been a decline in the number of heritage assets at risk across all 5 categories. For the first time the target includes all designated heritage assets. This now gives recognition to the significance of London’s World Heritage Sites recognising the economic benefits they bring as well as their contribution to the iconic images of London. The Mayor has recognised the importance that he attaches to World Heritage Sites by producing supplementary guidance to assist in the identification of their Settings and also identifying in London Plan policy a designated view from Parliament Square to the Palace of Westminster. In terms of the proportion of all designated heritage assets identified as ‘at risk’ the greatest improvements have been in conservation areas and scheduled monuments;

1.30 The one negative measure is loss of protected open space to new development. However, it should be recognised that the rate of loss has decreased since the previous year recorded in the AMR. It should also be remembered that for open space this is the total amount being lost now but in most cases there will be future re-provision as part of the redevelopment, so this is a gross figure rather than net overall. On a positive note the approvals recorded in the LDD also show a net gain in the amount of open space as a result of planning permissions. To support the protection, enhancement and extension of green and open spaces the Mayor has also produced supplementary guidance on the All London Green Grid. This is the first green infrastructure strategy for London and gives full recognition to the importance of a multifunctional network of green and open spaces across all London, with the vast range of benefits that this can bring both to biodiversity and to all those who live in, work in and visit London.

Objective 5 – improve the environment

1.31 This objective aims at London becoming a world leader in improving the environment both at a local level and globally. London Plan policies support taking a lead in London in tackling climate change, developing a low carbon economy, reducing pollution, consuming fewer resources and using them more effectively. The Mayor has also published the Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, the Water Strategy and the Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy. The implementation of the policies and proposals in these strategies taken together with the London Plan policies are all working towards achieving this objective. This is shown in the carbon dioxide emissions savings identified from strategic development proposals in 2010 as well as the identification of the renewable energy capacity installed.

1.32 The London Plan sets out new policy promoting urban greening, particularly in the Central Activities Zone. This will help to address some of the issues of overheating and adverse impacts on quality of life that could affect this area without appropriate action. Supplementary guidance on sustainable design and construction will set out mechanisms to help to address this issue. Green roofs are seen as one of the main ways that developments in central London can make a contribution. The Mayor’s Street Tree programme that recently saw its 10,000th street tree planted is also promoting urban greening. Supplementary guidance has been produced with the Forestry Commission to assist boroughs in preparing tree and woodland strategies. These strategies as well as the opportunities identified through partnership work on the All London Green Grid will support the implementation of both urban greening and enhancing green infrastructure.

1.33 The amounts of local authority collected waste have continued to decline, whilst the level of household waste that is recycled has increased to 33% with a resulting continuing decline in landfill.

1.34 The one negative measure is the loss of sites of importance for nature conservation. This does however show a vastly improving trend from the previous year. In 2009/10, 9.5 hectares of loss were recorded. In 2010/11, a loss of approximately 1.3 hectares was identified. It should be remembered that this is the total gross amount being lost now, but in most cases there will be future re-provision as part of the redevelopment.

Objective 6 – improve access/transport

1.35 Key KPIs supporting this objective showed ongoing improvement. The continuing investment in the tube network has contributed to the increasing rate of public transport use. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by almost 30%, and increased by almost 3% in 2010. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by 11% since 2001, and is down almost 1% in 2010. Corresponding to that road traffic volumes have continued to fall, down by 0.8% in 2010 and 7% since 2001.

1.36 Bicycle use is increasing with around 0.54 million journey stages made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 70% compared to 2001 and 6% more in the most recent year (2009 to 2010). The new London Plan includes a range of policies to help support further growth, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme and standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development.

1.37 Passenger and freight transported on London’s waterways have fallen by 1% and 5% respectively in 2010/11 over the previous year. This reflects wider economic trends. For passenger transport, there has been specifically a fall in the number of river tours whilst river bus and charters continue to grow (overall still the second highest level recorded). For freight, the decline reflects how the construction industry has been hit by economic conditions.

1.38 The Mayor is confident that these trends can be reversed: In terms of passenger transport facilities are being improved including the expansion of two piers in central London, and in terms of freight it is expected that significant construction projects including Crossrail and the Thames Tunnel will contribute to an increase in waterborne freight. It is on this basis (supported by detailed forecasting) that the Mayor will continue to safeguard a significant number of wharves on the River Thames.

Conclusion

1.39 The period covered by this AMR was a challenging one, with continued growth pressures at a time of major economic downturn and constrained public resources. Against this background, these indicators give a generally encouraging picture, London has not suffered as badly from the downturn as it has in earlier ones, and steady progress has been made across many environmental and quality of life indicators. However some longstanding challenges, such as housing and employment for Londoners, remain priorities for action. CHAPTER 2

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION

Scope and purpose of the AMR

2.1 This is the eighth London Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR 8). Section 346 of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act 1999 places a duty on the Mayor to monitor the implementation of the Mayor’s London Plan (the spatial development strategy for London – for details see later section of this chapter) and collect information about matters relevant to its preparation, review, alteration, replacement or implementation. The AMR is the central document in the monitoring process and assessing the effectiveness of the London Plan. It is important for keeping the London Plan under review and as evidence for plan preparation.

2.2 While this is the eighth AMR published by the Mayor, it is the first that supports the new London Plan published in July 2011. This introduces six new strategic objectives, and a new suite of 24 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor delivery. These indicators are intended to be a mixture of those carried forward from the previous London Plan (to help ensure some comparability over time) and new/amended ones (reflecting new or changed policies, or changes in the availability of data). What has not changed is the importance the Mayor places in effective monitoring. The London Plan is founded on a “plan-monitor-manage” approach to policy-making, ensuring that strategic planning policies are evidence-based, effective, and changed when necessary.

2.3 The new London Plan introduces a different approach to policy implementation, of which this AMR forms a part. Alongside this document, the Mayor is producing an Implementation Plan giving details of how each of the 121 policies in the London Plan will be delivered, and containing detailed information about London’s infrastructure needs to help inform policy development and implementation by the Mayor, boroughs and others. This AMR does not attempt to measure and monitor each Plan policy, as this would not recognize the complexity of planning decisions based on a range of different policies. It could also be resource intensive and would raise considerable challenges in setting meaningful indicators for which reliable data would be available. However, these documents together do give a detailed picture of how London is changing, and of the immense contribution the planning system is making to meeting these changes.

2.4 At the core of this AMR are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set out in Policy 8.4 (A) and Table 8.1 of the London Plan (see chapter 3 of this document for detailed analysis of the performance of each KPI). However, it should be recognised that a wide range of factors outside the sphere of influence of the London Plan influence the KPIs. The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London’s performance (see chapter 4). Whilst recognising longer-term trends where available the focus of the monitoring in this AMR is on the year 2010/11.

2.5 Paragraph 8.18 of the London Plan clarifies that the target for each indicator should be regarded as a benchmark, showing the direction and scale of change. These targets contribute to measuring the performance of the objectives set out in Policy 1.1 and paragraph 1.53 of the London Plan but do not represent additional policy in themselves.

2.6 This report draws on a range of data sources, but the GLA’s London Development Database (LDD) is of central importance (see further details about LDD in the following section). The LDD is a “live” system monitoring planning permissions and completions. It provides good quality, comprehensive data for the GLA, London boroughs and others involved in planning for London. In addition to the LDD, this report draws on details provided by the GLA’s Planning Decisions Unit, the GLA’s Demography and Policy Analysis Group (DMAG), the GLA’s Transport and Environment Team, Transport for London (TfL), English Heritage, the Environment Agency and Port of London Authority.

2.7 The AMR should not be confused with either:

- **The Mayor’s Annual Report:** This is required under the GLA Act 1999. The latest report was published in May 2011 and covers the period 2010/11. It sets out the Mayor’s objectives and the action taken to implement them (looking at support for the economy and the 2012 Games, tackling crime, quality of life and investing in young people). It shows progress against the statutory Mayoral Strategies, against corporate performance indicators, financial information and information required by the London Assembly. The report is available on the GLA’s website at http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/government/mayors-annual-report-201011.

- **The State of the Environment Report:** Published in July 2011 ‘London’s Environment Revealed’ is the first joint report on the state of London’s environment, produced in partnership with the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Forestry Commission. It can be found on the GLA’s website at http://data.london.gov.uk/datastore/package/state-environment-report-london-june-2011. The report looks at how the environment has changed over the last decade, and uses a series of indicators to illustrate the changes in the state of the environment within eight themes: Climate Change, Flood Risk, Water Quality, Water Resources, Waste, Air Quality, Noise and Transport, Biodiversity, and Landscape and Green Infrastructure. There are some similarities with the London Plan’s environmental KPIs and also the London Sustainable Development Commission’s report on London’s Quality of Life Indicators. Publication of this report was a statutory requirement; the Localism Act 2011 has removed this duty and the future of the State of the Environment Report is currently under review.

2.8 Chapter 5 provides an overview of other contextual data sources. This also demonstrates that the AMR should not be seen as the only monitoring mechanism for the London Plan policies.

**The London Development Database**

2.9 The London Development Database (LDD) is the key data source for monitoring planning approvals and completions in London. Data is entered by each of the 33 local planning authorities and the GLA provides a co-ordinating, consistency and quality management role. The Database monitors each planning permission from approval through to completion or expiry. Its strength lies in the ability to manipulate data in order to produce various specific reports. The data can also be exported to GIS systems to give a further level of spatial analysis. The value of the LDD is dependent on work by the boroughs to provide the required data, and the Mayor would take this opportunity to thank all of those concerned in supporting this invaluable resource.

2.10 Minor revisions were made to the LDD during 2010. From 1st April 2010 the following changes came into effect:

- Recording changes in the numbers of pitches for gypsies and travellers became a mandatory requirement.
- Apart-hotels and serviced apartments were given their own category separate from other non self-contained accommodation.
- The new C4 use class was added following the Government’s decision to introduce a new use class for Houses in Multiple Occupation of between 3 to 6 bedrooms. However a decision has since been taken that it should not be used except where boroughs remove the permitted development rights to change from C3 to C4.

2.11 2011 has seen the introduction of the following:

- A requirement to record whether proposed units are to be built on Greenfield or garden land on a unit by unit basis

2.12 Consultation is currently underway on a number of further additions following the adoption of the London Plan in July 2011.

2.13 It should be noted that some boroughs use the London Development Database as a data source for their AMRs, and all are expected to compare the data they publish with the data they have entered onto LDD. This should ensure a level of consistency between data on housing, open space etc which is published in both the borough and GLA AMRs. However, some differences in the figures do occur. This can in part be attributed to LDD being a live system, which is continually updated and adjusted to reflect the best information available. There are also occasional differences in the way completions are allocated to particular years, which may cause discrepancies between borough and GLA AMR data.

The new London Plan and its Implementation Framework

2.14 The new London Plan (http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/londonplan) was published in July 2011 replacing the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) published in February 2008. The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, and it sets out a fully integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of the capital to 2031. It forms part of the statutory development plan for Greater London. London boroughs’ local plans need to be in general conformity with the London Plan, and its policies guide decisions on planning applications by councils and the Mayor.

2.15 Since the publication of the new London Plan, preparation of the following policy documents altering or supplementing the London Plan have been underway:

- **Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule**

  As required by the Planning Act 2008 and the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended), the Mayor consulted on a preliminary draft charging schedule (in January/February 2011) and a draft schedule (in June/July 2011) to enable him to introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to help pay for Crossrail. Following a public examination in November/December of 2011, the remaining formal steps required have been taken in February 2012, with a view to starting to charge in April.

- **London Plan Early Minor Alternations**

  The Mayor is consulting on early minor alterations to the new London Plan. These note the Government’s introduction to replace existing national planning policy with a National Planning Policy Framework; bring the Government’s new affordable rent product into the Plan’s affordable housing policies; provide for Mayoral guidance on planning for hazardous installations; and update cycle parking standards. These minor alterations were issued for consultation with the London Assembly and functional bodies in October 2011, and for full public consultation in January 2012. It is anticipated that they will be subject to examination in public in the autumn of 2012 for formal publication early in 2013.

2.16 At its centre of the Mayor’s new approach to implementation of the London Plan is a suite of documents that together make up a London Planning Implementation Framework.

2.17 The keystone of this approach is an Implementation Plan, which sets out the overall approach to London Plan policy implementation. A draft of the first edition is available at [http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/implementation-plan](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/implementation-plan).

2.18 The Implementation Framework also includes:

- **Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), with a formal status** (see chapter 4 for overview of documents currently under development)
- **Opportunity Area/Intensification Area Frameworks, with a formal status** (see chapter 4 for overview of documents currently under development)
- **Implementation guides**
- **The Annual Monitoring Report, with a formal status**

2.19 The key distinction between the emerging Implementation Plan and the AMR is that the latter is looking predominately at past performance to identify trends, whilst the Implementation Plan is focusing on current and future actions to facilitate policy implementation and performance improvements. Linking KPIs and implementation actions directly may not be helpful as they serve different purposes and operate at different levels of detail. Together, however, they provide an important overview of the way London is changing, and of the way planning policies are used, and can be in the future, to influence and respond to these changes.

Changes to KPIs

2.20 The KPIs and benchmark targets used in this report differ from those in last year’s AMR 7, as it is the first AMR based on the revised KPIs in the new London Plan published in 2011. These changes have also been used as an opportunity to restructure the presentation of the document putting the performance of the KPIs at its centre – rather than into an Annex.

2.21 The importance of retaining a succinct set of indicators and targets to help understand whether the London Plan and its objectives are being implemented successfully, and to understand key trends, is understood. However, the monitoring regime of the previous London Plan was based on 28 KPIs and it has been recognised that some of these were ineffective. The new set comprises 24 KPIs. They are listed Table 8.1 of the London Plan and included in Table 2.1 with the nature of change compared to the previous KPIs highlighted.

| KPI | Target Description | Differences with AMR 7 KPI | |-----|--------------------|---------------------------| | 1 | Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land | Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land | None | | 2 | Optimise the density of residential development | Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2) | None | | 3 | Minimise the loss of Open space | No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development | None | | 4 | Increase supply of new homes | Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year | Amended (target) | | 5 | An Increased supply of affordable homes | Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year | Amended (no % target) | | 6 | Reducing health inequalities | Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women) | KPI 5a - amended | | 7 | Sustaining economic activity | Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031 | KPI 6 - amended | | 8 | Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market | Stock of office planning permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years | KPI 7 | | 9 | Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available | Release of industrial land (B2/B8 use over 1,000 sqm) to be in line with | New KPI | | KPI | Description | Target | Notes | |-----|-------------|--------|-------| | 10 | Employment in Outer London | Growth in total employment in Outer London | New KPI | | 11 | Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market | Reduce employment rate gap between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs England & Wales average | KPIs 9 & 10 - amended | | 12 | Improving provision of social infrastructure and related services | Reduce the average class size in primary schools | New KPI | | 13 | Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys | Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head | KPI 12 | | 14 | Same as above | Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole | KPI 13 - amended (simplified) | | 15 | Same as above | Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026 | New KPI | | 16 | Same as above | A 50 per cent increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021 | KPI 14 - amended (higher % target) | | 17 | Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values | Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6 | Amended (B1 only) | | 18 | Protection of biodiversity habitat | No net loss of designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation | None | | 19 | Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031 | At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031 | KPIs 19 & 20 - amended (% targets) | | 20 | Reduce CO2 emissions through new development | Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic development proposals progressing towards zero carbon in residential development by 2016 and zero carbon in all development by 2019 | KPI 22 - amended | | 21 | Increase in energy generated from renewable sources | Production of 8550 GWh(^3) of energy from renewable sources by 2026 (target will be developed in accordance with a Regional Renewable Energy Assessment) | KPI 23 - amended (target) |

(^3) Figure has only become available after the publication of the London Plan and is based on data in the GLA’s Decentralised Energy Capacity Study Phase 2: Deployment Potential (Oct 2011). | | Increase in urban greening | Increase the total area of green roofs in the CAZ | New KPI | |---|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|---------| | 22| Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network | Restore 15km of rivers and streams\* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (\*defined as main river by the Environment Agency – includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance) | New KPI | | 23| Protecting and improving London's heritage and public realm | Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London | KPI 25 - amended (heritage assets replacing listed buildings) | CHAPTER 3

PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS CHAPTER THREE PERFORMANCE AGAINST KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TARGETS

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 1

Maximise the proportion of development taking place on previously developed land

Target: Maintain at least 96 per cent of new residential development to be on previously developed land

3.1 Approvals on brownfield land remain above the 96% target and substantially above the national 60% target (see Table 3.1). There has however been a small drop for the second year in a row.

3.2 There are seven boroughs that have failed to meet the Mayor’s 96% target (see Table 3.1). The lowest percentage is in Bromley. This is largely due to three reserved matters permissions coming through for the development of the Crown Sports Ground. As the principle for development was approved back in 2007/08, this does not represent a new loss. Approval of 180 units as part of the proposals for the regeneration of Crystal Palace Park will still keep the total for the borough at some 86%. The total of 58% in Merton is due to developments on two playing field sites, both of which include major new public parks within the proposal. Richmond has granted permission for 76 units on the site of a former bowling green, now long derelict and boarded off. Harrow’s total of 90% is due to the proposal to redevelop the former home of Edgware Town Football Club. Again this is a permission for a site on which the principle of development has already been established (in a 2007 approval).

| Year | % of development approved on previously developed land | % of development completed on previously developed land | |--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | | by units | by site area | by units | by site area | | 2004/05 | 98.1 | 97.3 | | | | 2005/06 | 97.8 | 97.1 | | | | 2006/07 | 98.6 | 98 | 97.2 | 96.5 | | 2007/08 | 97.3 | 96.7 | 96.6 | 94.8 | | 2008/09 | 98.1 | 96.6 | 98.9 | 98.1 | | 2009/10 | 97.3 | 96.8 | 98.8 | 97.9 | | 2010/11 | 96.8 | 95.3 | 97.1 | 95.7 |

Source: London Development Database | Borough | 2007/08 | 2008/9 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |-------------------------------|---------|--------|---------|---------| | | % unit approvals | % unit completions | % unit approvals | % unit completions | % unit approvals | % unit completions | % unit approvals | % unit completions | | Barking and Dagenham | 98.5 | 79.8 | 76.0 | 100.0 | 88.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Barnet | 86.2 | 95.0 | 99.3 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.6 | | Bexley | 100.0 | 74.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 43.5 | 94.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Brent | 99.1 | 100.0 | 96.2 | 98.7 | 98.0 | 94.7 | 100.0 | 82.0 | | Bromley | 63.8 | 100.0 | 90.6 | 98.1 | 77.9 | 93.8 | 50.7 | 78.6 | | Camden | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | City of London | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 100.0 | 99.1 | 95.6 | 100.0 | 99.2 | 99.9 | 95.5 | 100.0 | | Ealing | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | | Enfield | 89.5 | 96.7 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 96.1 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 77.3 | | Greenwich | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.5 | 93.0 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 99.8 | | Hackney | 99.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 98.2 | 99.9 | 98.7 | 100.0 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 97.9 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Haringey | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 99.9 | 100.0 | 96.3 | 100.0 | | Harrow | 99.2 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 97.5 | 90.7 | 100.0 | | Havering | 75.8 | 97.9 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 100.0 | 93.5 | 30.6 | | Hillingdon | 94.8 | 100.0 | 94.6 | 96.7 | 98.9 | 96.2 | 91.4 | 100.0 | | Hounslow | 98.1 | 71.5 | 99.9 | 99.1 | 97.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Islington | 97.2 | 99.2 | 97.5 | 99.5 | 94.5 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 97.9 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 99.8 | 100.0 | 99.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | | Lambeth | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 97.9 | 100.0 | | Lewisham | 100.0 | 95.5 | 100.0 | 99.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Merton | 92.4 | 100.0 | 92.0 | 100.0 | 92.1 | 99.6 | 58.5 | 100.0 | | Newham | 99.5 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.7 | 96.9 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Redbridge | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 73.9 | 100.0 | 84.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 95.3 | 100.0 | 89.5 | 100.0 | | Southwark | 93.9 | 100.0 | 99.0 | 100.0 | 93.9 | 99.5 | 100.0 | 98.5 | | Sutton | 100.0 | 72.6 | 98.4 | 100.0 | 96.6 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 93.7 | | Tower Hamlets | 99.6 | 94.5 | 100.0 | 97.1 | 100.0 | 99.9 | 99.6 | 98.2 | | Waltham Forest | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | Wandsworth | 100.0 | 100.0 | 99.8 | 100.0 | 98.8 | 100.0 | 99.4 | 100.0 | | Westminster | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | London | 97.3 | 96.6 | 98.1 | 98.9 | 97.3 | 98.8 | 96.8 | 97.1 |

Source: London Development Database 3.3 The following should be noted about Table 3.2:

- Sites are only included where the site area can be calculated.

- Approvals include those permissions that are granted but not superseded during the specified year.

- Completions are allocated to the year in which the final part of the scheme is finished.

- Continued improvements to the reporting system mean that the method of calculating these figures has been improved since the last AMR so the area of a site being retained as open space is now subtracted from the site area calculations. The historic data has been updated to ensure consistency. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 2

Optimise the density of residential development

**Target:** Over 95 per cent of development to comply with the housing density location and the density matrix (London Plan Table 3.2)

3.4 Tables 3.3 and 3.4 compare the residential density of each scheme against the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score (see section 4.3.1 for the 2010 map, although the relevant maps were used for the calculations each year) and the setting (based on the Character Areas map published on page 94 of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment) for each development to test whether the development is within, above or below the relevant density range.

3.5 The percentage of units approved at a density within the range suggested by the Sustainable Residential Quality Density Matrix in the London Plan has decreased slightly this year (most not within are above the range), despite the fact that the residential density of approvals across London has declined.

3.6 Tables HPM13 and HPM14 in the Housing Monitor section in Chapter 4 show that, in absolute terms, development densities (especially for approvals), fell in 2010-11. However, this KPI is based on the percentage of units approved at a density within the range suggested by the Sustainable Residential Quality Density Matrix in the London Plan. This percentage has decreased this year and the proportion of development taking place above the range has increased.

3.7 It should be borne in mind that these data refer to a period before the new policies on development density set out in the 2011 London Plan came into effect and as such, they provide a baseline for future monitoring.

| Table 3.3 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – all schemes | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | **financial year** | **% of units approvals** | | | within range | above range | below range | | 2004/05 | 31% | 62% | 8% | | 2005/06 | 28% | 65% | 7% | | 2006/07 | 36% | 60% | 4% | | 2007/08 | 40% | 55% | 5% | | 2008/09 | 41% | 53% | 7% | | 2009/10 | 39% | 56% | 6% | | 2010/11 | 37% | 58% | 5% |

Source: London Development Database

### Table 3.4 Residential approvals compared to the density matrix – schemes of 15 units or more

| financial year | within range | above range | below range | |----------------|--------------|-------------|-------------| | 2006/07 | 30% | 69% | 1% | | 2007/08 | 36% | 63% | 2% | | 2008/09 | 36% | 62% | 2% | | 2009/10 | 35% | 63% | 2% | | 2010/11 | 31% | 68% | 1% |

Source: London Development Database

3.8 Tables 3.3 and 3.4 are based on all residential approvals for which a site area could be calculated. Density is calculated by dividing the total number of units by the total residential site area. The percentages are based on the number of units rather than the number of schemes. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 3

Minimise the loss of Open space

**Target:** No net loss of open space designated for protection in LDFs due to new development

3.9 Table 3.5 shows that losses of protected open space in planning approvals granted during 2010/11 stand at just over 11 hectares. This is well below the figure of nearly 17 hectares for 2009/10.

| Borough | Green Belt (ha) | Metropolitan Open Land (ha) | Local Open Spaces and other (ha) | grand total (ha) | |-------------------------------|----------------|-----------------------------|----------------------------------|-----------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0.000 | -1.756 | 0.000 | -1.756 | | Barnet | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Bexley | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Brent | 0.000 | -0.102 | 0.000 | -0.102 | | Bromley | -2.770 | -1.106 | -0.558 | -4.434 | | Camden | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Ealing | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.031 | -0.031 | | Enfield | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.030 | -0.030 | | Greenwich | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hackney | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Haringey | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Harrow | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.740 | -0.740 | | Havering | -0.010 | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.010 | | Hillingdon | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Hounslow | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.131 | -0.131 | | Islington | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Kingston upon Thames | -0.163 | 0.000 | -0.150 | -0.313 | | Lambeth | 0.000 | 0.000 | -1.411 | -1.411 | | Lewisham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 0.000 | -1.900 | 0.000 | -1.900 | | Newham | 0.000 | 0.000 | -0.235 | -0.235 | | Redbridge | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Southwark | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Sutton | -0.032 | 0.000 | -0.036 | -0.068 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Waltham Forest | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 3.10 To avoid a misleading impression of the scale of loss, it should be noted that these figures are net of proposed greenfield open space where re-provision is included as part of the planning permission. The types of open space protection recorded on LDD are Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Open Spaces. These are different from the designations for nature conservation recorded in KPI 18.

3.11 Table 3.6 shows that the largest single permission in the green belt is for the incorporation of agricultural land into an adjacent site for travelling showpeople in Bromley. The inclusion of nearly 3 hectares of agricultural land into an adjacent cemetery in Barnet is shown as no net change on this table as the proposed use is considered to be a greenfield use.

3.12 The largest loss of MOL is in Merton where the redevelopment of the Rowan High School site will include a new 2.6 hectare park, although there will be a net loss of 1.9 hectares to residential use.

3.13 The largest permission on a Local Open Space is in the redevelopment of the Myatts Field North housing estate in Lambeth. The outline permission includes extensive re-provision of the open spaces that will be lost, but is likely to result in a net loss of 0.8 hectares of open space.

3.14 Details of all schemes with existing open space designated for protection of over half a hectare are provided in Table 3.6.

| borough | permission reference | area of existing open space (hectares) | description | protected open space lost (hectares) | |------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 10/00804/FUL | 1.860 | Creation of a sports centre within public park designated as MOL | -1.860 | | Barnet | H/04617/08 | 2.970 | Incorporation of agricultural land in green belt into adjacent cemetery | 0.000 | | Bromley | 07/03897/OUT | 0.973 | Residential development within Crystal Palace Park, designated as MOL, as part of wider redevelopment and improvement scheme | -0.973 | | Bromley | 10/00281/FUL L2 | 2.400 | Transfer of agricultural land in the Green Belt to showmen's pitches. | -2.400 |

Source: London Development Database

### Table 3.6 Loss of Protected Open Space of 0.5 hectares or more, detail of schemes

| borough | permission reference | area of existing open space | description | protected open space lost (hectares) | |---------|-----------------------|-----------------------------|-------------|-------------------------------------| | Greenwich | 10/1450 | 0.805 | Redevelopment proposals for a school will include an improvement in overall quality of sports facilities and land available for sport but has a net loss of MOL | -0.113 | | Harrow | P/1941/07UN | 0.740 | Resubmission of plans for a residential development on former Edgware Town sports ground | -0.740 | | Lambeth | 10/01014/OUT | 3.656 | Outline application for major estate redevelopment will see considerable environmental improvements but will result in a net loss of Locally protected open space. | -0.794 | | Merton | 07/P1216 | 4.500 | Residential development on school playing fields designated as MOL will include a new public park although will see a net loss of open space | -1.900 | | **Total** | | **17.904** | | **-8.780** |

Source: London Development Database

3.15 Looking at changes in all open space provides additional perspective on this KPI. Table 3.7 shows the losses and gains of open space recorded on the London Development Database. It is not restricted to open space designated for protection, and includes all open space types. Reserved Matters for phases of previously approved losses are excluded, although renewals of un-implemented permissions are included.

3.16 The definition of open space used is based on the advice in PPG17, although the LDD excludes all private residential gardens as well as other areas within the curtilage of previously developed sites. The exceptions are outdoor sports facilities which may be within school grounds. | Location | Approvals | Completions | |--------------------------------|-----------|-------------| | | existing open space (ha) | proposed open space (ha)\* | net loss or gain (ha) | existing open space (ha) | proposed open space (ha)\* | net loss or gain (ha) | | Barking and Dagenham | 2.078 | 0.167 | -1.911 | 0.000 | 0.037 | 0.037 | | Barnet | 3.293 | 3.250 | -0.043 | 0.030 | 0.000 | -0.030 | | Bexley | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Brent | 0.987 | 1.535 | 0.548 | 4.041 | 0.763 | -3.278 | | Bromley | 4.434 | 0.000 | -4.434 | 4.678 | 0.067 | -4.611 | | Camden | 0.092 | 0.077 | -0.015 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | City of London | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Croydon | 0.315 | 0.048 | -0.267 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Ealing | 1.385 | 4.911 | 3.526 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Enfield | 0.106 | 0.077 | -0.029 | 2.221 | 0.543 | -1.678 | | Greenwich | 1.113 | 1.000 | -0.113 | 0.183 | 1.500 | 1.317 | | Hackney | 0.160 | 0.000 | -0.160 | 0.000 | 0.158 | 0.158 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Haringey | 0.370 | 0.000 | -0.370 | 0.000 | 1.783 | 1.783 | | Harrow | 0.740 | 15.030 | 14.290 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Havering | 0.982 | 2.873 | 1.891 | 1.320 | 0.000 | -1.320 | | Hillingdon | 2.729 | 0.090 | -2.639 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.012 | | Hounslow | 0.411 | 0.460 | 0.049 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Islington | 0.024 | 0.765 | 0.741 | 0.305 | 0.268 | -0.037 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0.000 | 0.459 | 0.459 | 0.100 | 0.130 | 0.030 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0.661 | 0.380 | -0.281 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Lambeth | 7.096 | 6.319 | -0.777 | 0.100 | 0.242 | 0.142 | | Lewisham | 0.000 | 0.571 | 0.571 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Merton | 7.400 | 4.450 | -2.950 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Newham | 0.349 | 0.680 | 0.331 | 1.368 | 0.302 | -1.066 | | Redbridge | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.823 | 1.190 | 0.367 | | Richmond upon Thames | 0.731 | 0.126 | -0.605 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Southwark | 0.264 | 1.952 | 1.688 | 0.222 | 0.160 | -0.062 | | Sutton | 0.068 | 0.000 | -0.068 | 0.761 | 0.000 | -0.761 | | Tower Hamlets | 0.017 | 1.548 | 1.531 | 0.098 | 0.237 | 0.139 | | Waltham Forest | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Wandsworth | 0.414 | 0.392 | -0.022 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | | Westminster | 0.150 | 0.471 | 0.321 | 0.120 | 0.120 | 0.000 | | London Total | 36.369 | 47.631 | 11.262 | 16.370 | 7.512 | -8.858 |

Source: London Development Database 3.17 For the first time approvals are showing a net gain in the amount of open space as a result of planning permissions. This is in large part due to the proposal to redevelop the Bentley Priory site in Harrow. The scheme will deliver 115 new homes and a museum on the site of a former defence establishment, and the grounds will be opened up to provide a major new public park covering 15 hectares.

3.18 The borough with the largest net loss of open space is Bromley. This includes the loss of just under a hectare of MOL in Crystal Palace Park to provide land for 180 new dwellings that will help to finance the extensive redevelopment of the park and its facilities.

3.19 Local Open Space Strategies are – amongst other functions – important means of identifying and addressing open space deficiencies. In future AMRs results of a survey of the boroughs’ open space strategies will be included in the environmental section of Chapter 4. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 4

Increase supply of new homes

**Target:** Average completion of a minimum of 32,210 net additional homes per year

3.20 This AMR covers a period when the 2008 London Plan (and its associated housing targets) had not been fully superseded by the 2011 Plan, though the latter was a material consideration. AMR 8 therefore includes housing provision targets from both the 2008 Plan (30,500 homes pa, 27,600 conventional homes) and the 2011 Plan (32,210 homes, 29,830 conventional homes).

3.21 CLG is currently reviewing the Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) returns and has proposed to no longer record the number of long term vacant homes in the private sector via this form, with information instead (covering all tenures) coming from Council Tax returns separately published by CLG. This year’s AMR uses Council Tax data instead of HSSA data to calculate overall net housing provision and a comparison of both sources can be found within the Housing Monitor appended to this Report.

3.22 Table 3.8 shows a 5% increase in total housing output in 2010/11 (24,710) relative to 2009/10 (23,640). This can be attributed largely to the use of Council Tax data on long term vacant homes which show a net reduction of 4,880 units, compared to the historic HSSA data which suggests a net reduction of only 1,410 units. Irrespective of these sources, total output for 2010/11 is below the monitoring benchmarks in both the 2008 and 2011 London Plans. However, it should be borne in mind that these are long-term benchmarks representing averages across development cycles. Output at this stage of an economic cycle, characterized by very restricted availability of development and mortgage finance as well as a general economic downturn, would be expected to be below average.

3.23 This significant reduction in output may not be as deep set as some commentators have expected. Table HPM 10 in section 4 (Housing Provision Monitor), showing conventional housing ‘starts’, suggests considerable construction activity last year, especially relative to that in 2009/10. Boroughs reported work beginning in 2010/11 on schemes with capacity for 41,700 dwellings compared with starts on those with capacity for only 26,700 units in 2009/10.

3.24 The full translation of these starts into completions may take some time although in spring 2011 London Residential Research (LRR) anticipated that:

“The big story … is construction volumes. Over 100 London schemes have started construction on private-sale units so far in 2011. We’ve visited every project and interviewed all the project managers to be absolutely sure of our facts. From our interviews, site visits and calculations we feel the following statement stands up to intense scrutiny … Despite a lack of conventional bank debt for residential construction, the market has found a way to build. And not just on a small scale – London is well into a residential

______________________________________________________________________

4 Two boroughs did not make returns

5 Crane T. London Land Report for residential market experts. Molior London Residential Research. May 2011 construction boom. It is completely feasible that some time during summer 2011 there will be more private-sale residential units under construction in London than at any time during the last 20 years including the peak year of 2007”.

3.25 In early 2012 LRR felt confirmed in its view, reporting(^6) that “London construction starts in 2011 were 37% ahead of starts in 2010. This construction surge is expected to continue throughout 2012”.

3.26 With capacity for over 170,000 homes in the pipeline, the London planning system can support a major expansion in housing output, making a major contribution not just to meeting housing need, but also to economic regeneration and employment.

3.27 It should be noted that the London Development Database applies a consistent methodology to the recording of completions data across London. As a result the figures in Table 3.8 may differ from those published in boroughs’ own AMRs, where local practices on recording partial completions of schemes, completions missed from previous years and losses of existing units will affect figures for each individual year. These differences should become less significant when viewing completion trends over time.

3.28 Non-self contained supply includes bedrooms in student hostels and hostels within the SG use class. Only schemes with 7 proposed bedrooms or more are recorded on the LDD system.

(^6) Crane T. Quarterly Analysis : Sales. For residential development market experts. Molior London Residential Development Research, January 2012. | borough | conventional | non self-contained | vacants returning to use | total | 2008 London Plan | 2011 London Plan | |-------------------------|--------------|--------------------|--------------------------|-------|------------------|------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 339 | 0 | 89 | 428 | 36% | 40.2% | | Barnet | 679 | 0 | 135 | 814 | 39.6% | 36.1% | | Bexley | 168 | 0 | -109 | 59 | 17.1% | 17.6% | | Brent | 393 | -9 | -34 | 350 | 31.3% | 32.9% | | Bromley | 672 | -34 | 82 | 720 | 148.5% | 144% | | Camden | 538 | 138 | 110 | 786 | 132.1% | 118.2% | | City of London | 98 | 54 | -22 | 130 | 144.4% | 118.2% | | Croydon | 1,122 | 7 | 155 | 1,284 | 116.7% | 96.5% | | Ealing | 264 | 31 | 282 | 577 | 63.1% | 64.8% | | Enfield | 455 | 8 | -42 | 421 | 106.6% | 75.2% | | Greenwich | 1,182 | 2 | -279 | 905 | 45% | 34.9% | | Hackney | 391 | -5 | 88 | 474 | 43.7% | 40.9% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 457 | -20 | 114 | 551 | 122.4% | 89.6% | | Haringey | 322 | -7 | 93 | 408 | 60% | 49.8% | | Harrow | 440 | 0 | 41 | 481 | 120.3% | 137.4% | | Havering | 69 | 0 | 127 | 196 | 36.6% | 20.2% | | Hillingdon | 303 | -72 | 116 | 347 | 95.1% | 81.6% | | Hounslow | 667 | 0 | 489 | 1,156 | 259.8% | 246% | | Islington | 512 | 752 | 133 | 1,397 | 120.4% | 119.4% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 168 | 246 | -3 | 411 | 117.4% | 70.3% | | Kingston upon Thames | 136 | 121 | 328 | 585 | 151.9% | 156% | | Lambeth | 1,342 | 0 | 550 | 1,892 | 172% | 158.3% | | Lewisham | 728 | -12 | 2 | 718 | 73.6% | 65% | | Merton | 356 | 0 | -11 | 345 | 93.2% | 107.8% | | Newham | 787 | -17 | 193 | 963 | 27.4% | 38.5% | | Redbridge | 350 | -600 | 120 | -130 | -14.4% | -17.1% | | Richmond upon Thames | 320 | -18 | -52 | 250 | 92.6% | 102% | | Southwark | 1,444 | 235 | 471 | 2,150 | 131.9% | 107.2% | | Sutton | 327 | 0 | 189 | 516 | 149.6% | 245.7% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,296 | 1192 | 684 | 3,172 | 100.7% | 109.9% | | Waltham Forest | 425 | 2 | 105 | 532 | 80% | 70% | | Wandsworth | 481 | -21 | 108 | 568 | 76.2% | 49.6% | | Westminster | 746 | -122 | 630 | 1,254 | 184.4% | 162.9% | | London | 17,977 | 1,851 | 4,882 | 24,710| 81% | 76.7% |

Sources: Conventional and non-self contained supply from the London Development Database, Long term vacants from CLG Housing Live Tables 615 which summarise Council Tax records supplied by Local Authorities KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 5

An increased supply of affordable homes

Target: Completion of 13,200 net additional affordable homes per year

3.29 Table 3.9 shows that in net terms some 6,900 conventional, new affordable homes were completed in London in 2010/11 compared with 9,000 in 2009/10. This represented 38% of total conventional completions, slightly above the trend since 2007/8.

3.30 As noted in previous AMRs, the London Housing Strategy (LHS) investment target for affordable housing should not be confused with the affordable housing target set out in the London Plan. The LHS investment target includes new build and acquisitions, but the London Plan target is measured in terms of net conventional supply: that is, supply from new developments or conversions, adjusted to take account of demolitions and other losses. The LHS/investment figure is therefore generally higher than the planning target. Monitoring achievement of the London Plan target is based on output from the London Development Database while monitoring achievement of the LHS investment targets uses the more broadly based figures provided by CLG (see section 4.2.1 - Housing Provision in London 2010/11 to this AMR).

3.31 The London Plan definition should be used for calculating affordable housing targets for development planning purposes including those for the proportion of total housing supply that is affordable. As with housing provision as a whole, affordable housing returns to the LDD are updated continuously and details in AMR 8 may not match those in previous Reports.

3.32 Because local affordable housing output can vary considerably from year to year, it is more meaningful to test individual borough performance against a longer term average. Table 3.9 shows average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2010/11. During this period affordable housing output averaged 37% of total provision. Figure 3.1 shows three-year average performance of individual boroughs relative to this.

3.33 The new 2011 London Plan introduced a strategic target for London of at least 13,200 affordable homes per year. The Mayor is working with boroughs to enable them to set local targets to make their contribution towards achieving this, taking into account local and strategic needs. These new targets may be expressed by boroughs in numeric or percentage terms (or both) as appropriate to local circumstances.

3.34 As with market housing, affordable housing output as measured by the London Plan KPI fell significantly during the economic down turn. However, also like market housing, borough reports to LDD suggest considerable construction activity in the sector during 2010/11. This is confirmed by HCA data showing that starts were then made on 16,331 homes funded by the Agency (see Table AHM3) – the highest level since records began in 2004/5. Nearly 70% of these were social housing. Looking at overall affordable housing investment (not just the new build element recorded by the LDD), 14,250 units were delivered in 2010/11, compared with 13,600 in 2009/10 and 13,100 in 2008/9. Almost two thirds (64%) of delivery in 2010/11 was social Delivery for the longer term is backed by the London Housing Strategy’s £1.8 billion, 55,000 unit investment programme over the four years 2011/12 to 2014/15.

Table 3.9 Average affordable housing output as a proportion of overall conventional housing provision over the three years to 2010/11

| borough | Total net conventional affordable completions | Affordable as % of total net conventional supply | |--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------| | | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | Total | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | Total | | Barking and Dagenham | 157 | 24 | 143 | 324 | 40% | 12% | 42% | 35% | | Barnet | 314 | 136 | 224 | 674 | 28% | 19% | 33% | 27% | | Bexley | 51 | 239 | 60 | 350 | 22% | 68% | 36% | 47% | | Brent | 589 | 414 | 184 | 1,187 | 52% | 51% | 47% | 51% | | Bromley | 177 | 224 | 198 | 599 | 35% | 40% | 29% | 35% | | Camden | 402 | 216 | 142 | 760 | 45% | 51% | 26% | 41% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0% | 0% | 2% | 1% | | Croydon | 416 | 708 | 385 | 1,509 | 27% | 51% | 34% | 37% | | Ealing | 309 | 229 | 73 | 611 | 37% | 53% | 28% | 40% | | Enfield | 73 | 30 | 220 | 323 | 20% | 11% | 48% | 29% | | Greenwich | 239 | 141 | 775 | 1,155 | 31% | 26% | 66% | 46% | | Hackney | 915 | 611 | 221 | 1,747 | 44% | 37% | 57% | 43% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 312 | 441 | 150 | 903 | 69% | 50% | 33% | 51% | | Haringey | 293 | 281 | 49 | 623 | 37% | 51% | 15% | 38% | | Harrow | 228 | 209 | 167 | 604 | 30% | 40% | 38% | 35% | | Havering | 301 | 288 | 0 | 589 | 48% | 67% | 0% | 52% | | Hillingdon | 177 | 189 | 175 | 541 | 21% | 31% | 58% | 31% | | Hounslow | 332 | 381 | 349 | 1,062 | 42% | 59% | 52% | 51% | | Islington | 330 | 472 | -43 | 759 | 15% | 32% | -8% | 18% | | Kensington & Chelsea | 96 | 22 | 61 | 179 | 38% | 7% | 36% | 24% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 30 | 65 | 95 | 0% | 21% | 48% | 19% | | Lambeth | 585 | 417 | 744 | 1,746 | 51% | 36% | 55% | 48% | | Lewisham | 205 | 168 | 339 | 712 | 23% | 22% | 47% | 30% | | Merton | 265 | 49 | 48 | 362 | 34% | 15% | 13% | 25% | | Newham | 590 | 712 | 370 | 1,672 | 49% | 48% | 47% | 48% | | Redbridge | 97 | 175 | 111 | 383 | 15% | 18% | 32% | 20% | | Richmond upon Thames | 135 | 76 | 45 | 256 | 38% | 37% | 14% | 29% | | Southwark | 299 | 700 | 587 | 1,586 | 29% | 52% | 41% | 42% | | Sutton | 243 | -15 | 222 | 450 | 52% | -7% | 68% | 45% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,701 | 707 | 292 | 2,700 | 56% | 27% | 23% | 39% | | Waltham Forest | 295 | -130 | 248 | 413 | 40% | -88% | 58% | 31% | | Wandsworth | 482 | 479 | 109 | 1,070 | 31% | 31% | 23% | 30% | | Westminster | 231 | 385 | 152 | 768 | 32% | 56% | 20% | 36% | | London | 10,839 | 9,008 | 6,867 | 26,714| 37% | 37% | 38% | 37% |

Source: London Development Database 3.35 Notes: When calculating net figures for phased schemes, LDD allocates unit losses to the year in which the final proposed unit in a scheme is completed. This can lead to negative net figures when large phased redevelopments reach their completion. For example, in Table 3.9 Islington is shown as having a net loss because of the completion of part of the Market Road Estate redevelopment which has been delivering new housing since 2007/08.

Figure 3.1 Three year average performance of individual boroughs

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 6

Reducing health inequalities

**Target:** Reduction in the difference in life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of London (shown separately for men and women)

3.36 Figures on life expectancy at birth are produced at ward level by the London Health Observatory based on mortalities over a five year period. The London Plan’s regeneration areas (policy 2.14) are identified as the 20% most deprived Lower Super Output Areas, which are not directly comparable with ward boundaries. As a proxy measure the 20% most deprived wards were identified by calculating the proportion of LSOAs within each ward that are in the 20% most deprived LSOAs nationally. It was calculated that a ratio of 59% or more brought the closest to 20% of wards. The figures for the Regeneration Areas in this table are actually the simple averages of the published figures for the 20% of wards identified by this method. The figures for 2006-10 are expected to be published before the next AMR is produced.

3.37 When comparing the figures for 2003-07 and 2005-09, the difference in the anticipated life expectancy at birth in the regeneration areas has improved compared to the London average for both males and females. The gap for males stands at 2.25 years, much more than the 0.91 years for females. Due to the methods used to calculate this, a degree of variability would be expected, so a comparison of the figures for the two dates needs to be treated with some caution.

| Table 3.10 Life Expectancy at Birth | |-------------------------------------| | | | **2003-07** | | Males | Females | Males | Females | |-------|---------|-------|---------| | Regeneration Areas | 74.82 | 80.61 | 75.87 | 82.13 | | London Average | 77.14 | 81.74 | 78.12 | 83.04 | | Gap | 2.32 | 1.13 | 2.25 | 0.91 |

Source: 2003-07 London Health Observatory; 2005-09 London Health Programmes KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 7

Sustaining economic activity

**Target:** Increase in the proportion of working age London residents in employment 2011–2031

3.38 Table 3.11 shows that London saw a steady increase in its employment rate(^7) between 2005 and 2008. However, the economic downturn led to a sudden drop in the employment rate in 2009 that took it back to 2006 levels, and another slight drop in 2010 which took it below 2005 levels.

3.39 Historically there have been low levels of economic activity among London residents relative to that of the country as a whole. However, when compared with the UK average, the gap in rates has fallen steadily between 2005 and 2010, changing from 4.3 percentage points, to just 2.1 points, meaning the gap has more than halved.

| Year | London residents in employment | London residents of working age | London employment rate % | UK employment rate % | |------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------| | 2004 | 3,448,300 | 5,050,000 | 68.3 | 72.4 | | 2005 | 3,490,100 | 5,118,900 | 68.2 | 72.5 | | 2006 | 3,538,000 | 5,178,900 | 68.3 | 72.4 | | 2007 | 3,600,000 | 5,224,100 | 68.9 | 72.4 | | 2008 | 3,662,400 | 5,269,000 | 69.5 | 72.1 | | 2009 | 3,640,000 | 5,320,000 | 68.4 | 70.5 | | 2010 | 3,702,100 | 5,436,200 | 68.1 | 70.2 |

Source: Annual Population Survey

(^7) This includes self-employment. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 8

Ensure that there is sufficient development capacity in the office market

**Target:** Stock of office permissions to be at least three times the average rate of starts over the previous three years

3.40 The Annual Monitoring Report draws on data from both EGi London Offices and the London Development Database (LDD). According to the EGi data (see Table 3.12), the ratio of permissions to average three years starts at end 2011 was 13.5:1. In the most recent set of comparable figures for the two databases, for 2010, the ratio of permissions to starts was 13:1 according to EGi and 11.6:1 according to LDD, both comfortably in excess of the target of 3:1. The variation in the ratio can be accounted for by the different definitions used in the datasets.8

| Year | Ratio of planning permissions to three year average starts | |------|----------------------------------------------------------| | | EGi | LDD | | 2004 | 11.9:1 | 6.4:1 | | 2005 | 8.1:1 | 7.4:1 | | 2006 | 8.3:1 | 8.7:1 | | 2007 | 6.3:1 | 4.7:1 | | 2008 | 7.5:1 | 4.1:1 | | 2009 | 10:1 | 7:1 | | 2010 | 13:1 | 11.6:1 | | 2011 | 13.5 | N/A |

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices, London Development Database

3.41 **Starts:** in 2011 the volume of construction starts in central London according to EGi was 331,000 sq metres net, an increase of 7% on the 2010 figure of 308,000 sq m net

______________________________________________________________________

8 EGi data for permissions is based on planning committee decisions which are a precursor to discussion on the content of s.106 agreements, whereas LDD waits for a decision letter to be issued which does not happen until the legal agreement has been signed. LDD data has a minimum threshold of 1,000 sq m gross, whereas the threshold in EGi data is 500 sq m gross. LDD data excludes refurbishments where the existing building is already in office use, while these are included by EGi. In addition EGi data for starts is based on observed construction of new or refurbished space, whereas LDD records whether work is started in a legal sense, so can include demolition works as starts where these, in effect, activate the permission. Over the period 2004-2011 the office floorspace permissions recorded by LDD are typically 60-70% of the floorspace recorded by EGi. The LDD figure provides a useful measure of the store of permissions available to facilitate the immediate responsiveness of developers to changes in demand, whereas the EGi figure gives a broader measure of activity by developers in the office market (accepting that some of the permissions in that dataset may never come to fruition)

9 Central London defined here as Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Wandsworth (see Figure 3.2). The long-term average for office development starts in central London was 575,000 sq m over the period 1985-2011 and starts were below average for each of the past four years 2008-2011.

Figure 3.2 Office starts and year-end permissions in Central London 1985-2011

Source: Ramidus Consulting, EGi London Offices

3.42 Of the 331,000 sq m net commenced in central London in 2011, 209,000 sq m net (63%) was located in the City market, 98,000 sq m net (28%) in the West End market, 8,000 sq m net (2%) in the Southbank market, 6,000 sq m net in Midtown (2%) and the balance of 17,000 sq m net (5%) spread around other Inner London locations. In the City, as anticipated in last year’s AMR 7, there were two significant starts at 20 Fenchurch Street, EC3 (“The Walkie Talkie”) of 58,300 sq m net and 122 Leadenhall Street, EC3 (“The Cheesegrater”) of 54,600 sq m net. Taken together, these two towers accounted for 34% of all central London starts in 2011. There were two further starts in excess of 10,000 sq m net in the City market at 60 London, 60 Holborn Viaduct, EC1 (19,200 sq m) and Finsbury Circus House, 12-15 Finsbury Circus, EC2 (15,700 sq m).

3.43 Fifteen schemes commenced in the West End, many with a strong mixed use character. The largest was the Regent’s Quarter’s North East Quadrant, NW1 which includes 94 private apartments, a social housing block of 70 units and 3,600 sq m gross of retail and community uses. Other significant starts in the West End were at 1 Howick Place, SW1, with 12,900 sq m net offices and 33 housing units and St James’s Gateway, W1, with 6,300 sq m net offices, 16 housing units and 2,600 sq m gross retail.

3.44 Beyond the City and West End starts were more limited, with only one scheme commencing in Midtown at 280 High Holborn, WC1, (5,900 sq m net) and three in the Southbank, the largest of which was the refurbishment and extension of 65 Southwark Street, SE1 (4,500 sq m net).

3.45 Pipeline: the planning pipeline of permissions in central London remained unchanged in 2011 at 3.8 million sq m net, according to EGi. Total permitted development continued to be strongly influenced by very large development schemes. Six schemes were each over 100,000 sq m net and together accounted for 37% of all permitted development, being Wood Wharf, E14 (369,000 sq m net), King’s Cross, NW1 (309,000 sq m net), North Quay, E14 (222,000 sq m net), Riverside South, E14 (185,300 sq m net), Battersea Power Station (158,000 sq m net) and Heron Quays West, E14 (155,000 sq metres net). Four of these major permissions at Wood Wharf, North Quay, Riverside South and Heron Quays West are effectively major additions to the Canary Wharf Opportunity Area. Reflecting this LB Tower Hamlets had the highest total permissions by borough at 1.35 million sq m net (35%), which as well as Docklands included major schemes in the eastern City Fringe such as Aldgate Union and News International. 26% of permissions, a total of 989,000 sq m net, were located in the City of London including major schemes such as Walbrook Square, EC4, 5 Broadgate, EC2, 100 Bishopsgate, EC3, Trinity 1,2,3, EC3 and London Wall Place, EC2.

3.46 There was a further 392,000 sq m net in LB Camden accounting for 10% of central London’s outstanding consents, predominantly in King’s Cross, and 356,000 sq m net in Westminster (9% of the central London total). Camden, City of London, City of Westminster and Tower Hamlets together accounted for 80% of outstanding planning consents in central London at the end of 2011.

3.47 Demand: 2011 saw reductions in office availability, weakening office take-up and evidence of stabilising rent levels in most markets in the second half of the year. According to DTZ Research, availability fell by 9% during 2011, but rose by 6% during the 4th Quarter.(^\\text{10}) Leasing activity had strengthened in 2010 to 1.44 million sq m, but there was a very significant decline of 35% in 2011 to 0.94 million sq m. Prime rents stabilised in the City and Midtown during 2011 at £55 per sq ft (£592 per sq m), but there was evidence of continued growth in the West End throughout 2011 to reach £95 sq ft (£1,023 per sq m) in the 4th Quarter. The reduction in incentives such as rent-free periods also slowed during the year. Although DTZ sees the prospect of some element of recovery to the central London economy prior to the end of 2012, the firm comments, “Looking forward we expect the current weak leasing market to continue. The UK economy is slowing, and recession seems likely both here and on much of the Continent. And financial sector weakness, which is at the core of the reduced level of demand in central London, shows no sign of recovery.”

3.48 Office development is particularly sensitive to economic changes at the macro and micro scales. The Mayor is currently commissioning a new London Office Policy Review to update that published in 2009 to identify future trends; AMR9 will be informed by its findings.

(^{10}) DTZ Research: Property Times, Central London Q4 2011 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 9

Ensure that there is sufficient employment land available

**Target:** Release of industrial land to be in line with benchmarks in the Industrial capacity SPG

3.49 Table 3.13 shows a total of 69ha of industrial land release in 2010/11. Whilst this is more than the benchmark of 41ha in the London Plan (paragraph 4.21) it is a reduction on the annual average rate of release between 2001 and 2010.

3.50 Table 3.13 also includes a comparison of actual 2010/2011 release rates with 2001-2010 annual average rates of release for London’s sub-regions. The trends vary from sub-region to sub-region. Sub-regional benchmarks are also included in current draft Land for Industry and Transport SPG.

| Sub-region | Annual average release 2001-2006 | Annual average release 2006-2010 | Actual release 2010/11 | London Plan annual benchmark 2006-2026 | 2012 Draft SPG annual benchmark 2011-2031 | |------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Central | 6 | 4 | 10 | -- | 5 | | East | 57 | 61 | 26 | -- | 16 | | North | 2 | 1 | 5 | -- | 3 | | South | 11 | 3 | 11 | -- | 6 | | West | 10 | 18 | 17 | -- | 7 | | London | 86 | 87 | 69 | 41 | 37 |

Source: LDD, London Plan and draft Industrial Land Benchmark SPGs

3.51 It should be noted that mixed residential-industrial use sites are not included in the 2010/2011 figure. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 10

Employment in Outer London

**Target:** Growth in total Employment in Outer London

3.52 Though there are local exceptions, employment in many outer boroughs has been static or declining over two economic cycles. Over the period 1989-2009 (both years being cycle peaks), employment growth in Outer London fell well short of that in Inner London (3.1 per cent vs 15.0 per cent). London overall saw employment growth of 10 per cent. Overall, the changes in employment for individual boroughs have been very diverse - seven outer boroughs achieved employment growth in excess of 10 per cent in the 1989-2009 period. The Mayor set up the Outer London Commission to investigate how Outer London can best realise its potential to contribute to the London economy and the Commission’s recommendations made a major contribution to the London Plan’s new policies for Outer London.

3.53 This is a new KPI. It relates to KPI 7, but focusing on employment in Outer London. Table 3.14 shows that though employment declined in some boroughs between 2009 and 2010, it grew overall by 39,000 or 1.8%, slightly above the pan London average (1.6%). Though economic activity rates have declined slightly in the economic downturn, they have been above the London average. | Outer London Borough | 2009 | 2010 | 2009 | 2010 | |---------------------|------|------|------|------| | | residents in employment | residents of working age | rate | residents in employment | residents of working age | rate | | Barking and Dagenham | 69,200 | 110,500 | 62.6 | 72,000 | 114,400 | 62.9 | | Barnet | 151,900 | 225,300 | 67.4 | 164,000 | 230,500 | 71.1 | | Bexley | 101,200 | 145,300 | 69.7 | 103,600 | 146,300 | 70.8 | | Brent | 118,000 | 171,100 | 69.0 | 113,000 | 175,100 | 64.6 | | Bromley | 149,000 | 197,000 | 75.7 | 146,900 | 201,200 | 73.0 | | Croydon | 165,200 | 229,100 | 72.1 | 168,200 | 232,300 | 72.4 | | Ealing | 144,000 | 220,900 | 65.2 | 152,600 | 223,400 | 68.3 | | Enfield | 115,300 | 187,500 | 61.5 | 121,200 | 189,300 | 64.0 | | Haringey | 95,600 | 158,100 | 60.5 | 100,600 | 160,100 | 62.8 | | Harrow | 108,300 | 150,500 | 72.0 | 113,100 | 155,200 | 72.9 | | Havering | 107,100 | 150,200 | 71.3 | 105,200 | 152,600 | 69.0 | | Hillingdon | 125,400 | 172,300 | 72.8 | 119,600 | 176,100 | 67.9 | | Hounslow | 116,400 | 164,000 | 71.0 | 121,500 | 168,000 | 72.3 | | Kingston upon Thames| 86,600 | 116,200 | 74.5 | 85,000 | 119,800 | 70.9 | | Merton | 105,200 | 143,300 | 73.4 | 107,200 | 147,600 | 72.6 | | Redbridge | 119,300 | 177,100 | 67.3 | 118,600 | 182,600 | 65.0 | | Richmond upon Thames| 93,700 | 125,800 | 74.5 | 96,200 | 127,700 | 75.4 | | Sutton | 98,000 | 126,600 | 77.4 | 98,800 | 129,600 | 76.3 | | Waltham Forest | 98,600 | 150,400 | 65.6 | 99,700 | 154,400 | 64.5 | | Outer London | 2,168,000.0 | 3,121,200.0 | 69.5 | 2,207,000.0 | 3,186,200.0 | 69.3 | | London | 3,640,000.0 | 5,320,000.0 | 68.4 | 3,702,100.0 | 5,436,200.0 | 68.1 |

Source: Annual Population Survey KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 11

Increased employment opportunities for those suffering from disadvantage in the employment market

**Target:** Reduce the employment rate gap between BAME groups and the white population and reduce the gap between lone parents on income support in London vs the average for England & Wales

3.54 Table 3.15 shows that the gap between employment rates for White and BAME Londoners has broadly followed a downward trend. In 2004, the gap was 16.6 percentage points, it then fell to 14.2 points in 2007 before rising slightly to 15.5 in 2009. But in 2010 it fell again to 13.3 points. Over the six-year period the gap has reduced by 3.3 percentage points.

3.55 London Plan Policy 4.12 supports strategic development proposals which encourage employers to recruit local people and sustain their employment, and the provision of skills development, training opportunities and affordable spaces to start a business. This approach – which builds on earlier Plan policy - has contributed to this positive trend. The GLA has also been encouraging employers to recruit local people, in particular in deprived areas of London where a large number of BAME Londoners live and sustain their employment. Initiatives such as the Construction Employer Accord and the GLA’s Supplier Skills project should also be mentioned. The latter supports TfL contractors in promoting employment and skills.

| Year | All Persons | White Groups | BAME Groups | Employment rate gap White/ BAME | |------|-------------|--------------|-------------|--------------------------------| | | in employment | in employment | in employment | in employment | rate % | rate % | White/ BAME | | 2004 | 3,448,300 | 2,532,100 | 908,300 | 16.6 | | 2005 | 3,490,100 | 2,517,500 | 967,300 | 16.3 | | 2006 | 3,538,000 | 2,503,700 | 1,026,800 | 15.9 | | 2007 | 3,600,000 | 2,500,500 | 1,095,500 | 14.2 | | 2008 | 3,662,400 | 2,542,700 | 1,115,500 | 14.7 | | 2009 | 3,640,000 | 2,542,400 | 1,091,300 | 15.5 | | 2010 | 3,702,100 | 2,517,400 | 1,177,200 | 13.3 |

Source: Annual Population Survey 3.56 Table 3.16 shows that in terms of income support for lone parents over a 10-year period the gap between London and England & Wales has reduced by 7 percentage points. Policy 8.2 prioritises S106 funding for childcare provision (see also Policy 4.12).

3.57 However, it should be noted that since the introduction of the Employment Support Allowance (ESA), lone parents with health issues, who were previously claiming Income Support, now claim ESA. The 2010 and 2011 figures were revised accordingly. This has to be considered when comparing different years. However, this does not affect the comparison of London vs England and Wales’ data for each year.

| Annual Report | London | as % of lone parent families | England and Wales | as % of lone parent families | difference in percentage points | |---------------|--------|------------------------------|-------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------| | 2001 | 168,400| 64 | 818,700 | 53 | 11 | | 2002 | 166,840| 62 | 792,060 | 50 | 12 | | 2003 | 166,630| 60 | 779,340 | 49 | 12 | | 2004 | 165,120| 59 | 751,050 | 46 | 13 | | 2005 | 163,620| 57 | 721,370 | 43 | 14 | | 2006 | 162,770| 55 | 709,370 | 42 | 14 | | 2007 | 160,450| 53 | 702,580 | 40 | 13 | | 2008 | 152,520| 49 | 679,150 | 38 | 11 | | 2009 | 141,720| 44 | 662,660 | 36 | 8 | | 2010 | 129,100| 39 | 624,330 | 33 | 6 | | 2011 | 109,200| 32 | 547,600 | 28 | 4 |

Source: Department for Work and Pensions KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 12

Improving the provision of social infrastructure and related services

**Target:** Reduce the average class sizes in primary schools

3.58 This is a new KPI target replacing the targets 11a and b for which data are no longer available.

3.59 The average class size has increased in all of the London boroughs since 2005 and also when comparing the most recent 2010 to 2011 data (except in Hammersmith and Fulham) – see Table 3.17 overleaf.

3.60 This can be attributed to demographic changes (primarily reduced migration out of London to other parts of the UK) resulting in an increased number of primary school children and the pressure London’s primary schools face to reduce costs. These demographic changes are being closely monitored; there are signs that domestic out-migration from London has started to increase.

3.61 The target has therefore not been met. London Plan Policy 3.18 should help to reverse this trend by reinforcing the importance of education provision, supporting the establishment of new schools (new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes) and steps to enable local people and communities to do the same. | Area | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |-------------------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 26.7 | 26.4 | 26.8 | 26.9 | 27.2 | 27.5 | 27.9 | | Barnet | 27.1 | 27 | 27.2 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 27.9 | 28.1 | | Bexley | 27.1 | 27.6 | 27.6 | 27.3 | 27.8 | 28 | 28.2 | | Brent | 27.3 | 27.5 | 27.4 | 28 | 27.8 | 28.1 | 28.5 | | Bromley | 27.2 | 27.3 | 27.1 | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 28.1 | | Camden | 26.7 | 26.7 | 26.9 | 26.9 | 26.6 | 27.1 | 27.1 | | City of London | 24 | 24.4 | 22.2 | 24.8 | 24.7 | 25.9 | 25.9 | | Croydon | 27.4 | 27.3 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 27.7 | 27.9 | 28.1 | | Ealing | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.2 | 27.7 | 27.8 | | Enfield | 28.1 | 27.9 | 28.3 | 28.3 | 28.6 | 28.2 | 28.7 | | Greenwich | 26 | 26.1 | 26.2 | 26 | 26 | 26.5 | 26.9 | | Hackney | 25.9 | 26 | 26.3 | 25.8 | 25.8 | 26.1 | 26.3 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 25.6 | 25.7 | 26.2 | 25.8 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.1 | | Haringey | 27.4 | 27.4 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 28 | | Harrow | 26.2 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 26.1 | 26.9 | 26.7 | 28 | | Havering | 26.7 | 26.5 | 26.8 | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28 | | Hillingdon | 26.4 | 26.6 | 26.6 | 26.5 | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.4 | | Hounslow | 26.5 | 26.8 | 27 | 27.2 | 27.4 | 27.8 | 28.2 | | Islington | 25.8 | 25.7 | 25.7 | 25.5 | 25.5 | 25.3 | 26.2 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 26.4 | 26.1 | 26.2 | 26 | 25.7 | 26.2 | 26.8 | | Kingston upon Thames | 26.7 | 26.8 | 27.1 | 27.1 | 27 | 27.7 | 27.5 | | Lambeth | 25.8 | 26 | 25.9 | 25.9 | 25.7 | 25.7 | 26 | | Lewisham | 26 | 26 | 25.8 | 25.9 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.8 | | Merton | 26 | 25.8 | 26.4 | 26.7 | 27 | 27.1 | 27.5 | | Newham | 26.8 | 26.8 | 26.7 | 26.8 | 27 | 27.4 | 27.8 | | Redbridge | 28.2 | 28.6 | 29 | 29.2 | 29.2 | 29.1 | 29.5 | | Richmond upon Thames | 27.1 | 26.9 | 26.8 | 26.5 | 26.9 | 27.4 | 28 | | Southwark | 25.1 | 25.3 | 24.9 | 24.6 | 24.5 | 24.8 | 25.2 | | Sutton | 27.8 | 27.5 | 27.7 | 27.8 | 27.8 | 27.9 | 28.2 | | Tower Hamlets | 26 | 26.1 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.3 | 26.9 | 27.3 | | Waltham Forest | 26.3 | 27.4 | 27.4 | 27.9 | 28 | 28.5 | 28 | | Wandsworth | 25.8 | 25.6 | 25.6 | 25.5 | 25.3 | 25.9 | 25.6 | | Westminster | 26 | 25.9 | 25.5 | 25.8 | 25.4 | 26.3 | 26.7 | | London | 26.7 | 26.7 | 26.8 | 26.8 | 27 | 27.2 | 27.6 | | England | 26.2 | 26.3 | 26.2 | 26.2 | 26.2 | 26.4 | 26.6 |

Source: Department of Education KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 13

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Use of public transport per head grows faster than use of the private car per head

3.62 The indices in Table 3.18 are derived from the time series of journey stages per head compiled for Travel in London Report 4 (TfL Planning December 2011). This includes all travel to, from or within Greater London, including travel by commuters and visitors. For consistency the population estimates include in-commuters and visitors (derived from the Labour Force Survey and the International Passenger Survey respectively, courtesy of ONS). It should be noted that the figures have been revised compared to previous AMRs.

3.63 Total daily journey stages in 2010 were 28.7 million, up from 28.5 million in each of the previous two years, and 3 million higher than in 2001. Of these stages, 36% were by private transport, and 40% by public transport. Since 2001, use of public transport per head has grown by almost 30%, and increased by almost 3% in the latest year. In contrast, private transport use per head has decreased by 11% since 2001, and is down almost 1% in the latest year. In line with the target, public transport use per head continues to grow at a faster rate than private transport, which continues to fall year on year.

| Year | Public transport index | Private transport index | |------|------------------------|-------------------------| | 2001 | 100.0 | 100.0 | | 2002 | 103.2 | 99.3 | | 2003 | 108.7 | 98.3 | | 2004 | 114.3 | 95.2 | | 2005 | 113.0 | 92.4 | | 2006 | 116.1 | 93.4 | | 2007 | 122.6 | 95.1 | | 2008 | 126.5 | 92.0 | | 2009 | 126.4 | 89.9 | | 2010 | 129.3 | 89.0 |

Source: Transport for London KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 14

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Zero car traffic growth for London as a whole

3.64 Table 3.19 shows that road traffic volumes continued to fall in the latest year, down by 0.8% between 2009 and 2010, and 7% since 2001. In 2010, traffic volumes fell in both Inner and Outer London, down by 0.5% and 1.0% respectively. Traffic levels in Inner London are almost 12% lower than in 2001. In Outer London, traffic levels are over 4% lower than 2001.

3.65 For major roads only, traffic levels are more stable, with no growth overall in the latest year. A slight increase on major roads in Inner London was offset by a small decrease on major roads in Outer London. Since 2001, traffic levels on major roads are down by almost 6%.

3.66 With regards to the target, car traffic is declining rather than growing across all sectors of London.

| Table 3.19 Traffic (billion vehicle kilometres, all vehicles) in London | |-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------| | | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | | **All roads:** | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 32.59| 32.48| 32.48| 32.00| 31.45| 31.79| 32.04| 31.39| 30.58| 30.30| | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 9.15 | 8.95 | 8.88 | 8.55 | 8.52 | 8.75 | 8.62 | 8.38 | 8.11 | 8.06 | | Outer London | 22.14| 22.28| 22.46| 22.31| 21.81| 21.94| 22.32| 21.94| 21.44| 21.20| | **All roads index (2001=100)** | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.7 | 99.7 | 98.2 | 96.5 | 97.6 | 98.3 | 96.3 | 93.8 | 93.0 | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 100.0| 97.8 | 97.1 | 93.5 | 93.1 | 95.6 | 94.3 | 91.6 | 88.6 | 88.1 | | Outer London | 100.0| 100.6| 101.4| 100.8| 98.5 | 99.1 | 100.8| 99.1 | 96.8 | 95.8 | | **Major roads only** | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 20.8 | 20.7 | 20.8 | 20.6 | 19.9 | 20.2 | 20.5 | 20.2 | 19.7 | 19.7 | | Inner London (excl City and Westminster) | 5.6 | 5.4 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.2 | 5.0 | 5.0 | | Outer London | 14.4 | 14.5 | 14.6 | 14.6 | 14.1 | 14.2 | 14.5 | 14.2 | 13.9 | 13.9 | | **Major roads index (2001=100)** | | | | | | | | | | | | Greater London | 100.0| 99.5 | 99.6 | 98.7 | 95.3 | 96.7 | 98.4 | 96.7 | 94.4 | 94.3 | | | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |----------------------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------|------| | Inner London (excl City & Westminster) | 100.0 | 96.5 | 96.3 | 92.4 | 89.9 | 93.5 | 94.4 | 92.3 | 89.5 | 90.0 | | Outer London | 100.0 | 100.9 | 101.5 | 101.8 | 97.9 | 98.5 | 100.7 | 99.2 | 97.1 | 96.8 |

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 4, section 3.1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 15

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** Increase the share of all trips by bicycle from 2 per cent in 2009 to 5 per cent by 2026

3.67 Table 3.20 shows that in 2010 almost 2% of all journeys in Greater London on an average day were made by bicycle, an increase of 52% compared to 2001 and 5% more in the most recent year (2009 to 2010). Around 0.54 million journey stages were made by bicycle in Greater London on an average day, an increase of 70% compared to 2001 and 6% more in the most recent year (2009 to 2010).

3.68 If growth is sustained at this rate, London will remain on track to meet the Mayor’s objective to see a cycling revolution, with a target for a 5% cycle mode share by 2026. The new London Plan includes a range of policies to help support achievement of this objective, such as support for the Cycle Superhighway network and the London cycle hire scheme and standards for cycle parking and facilities for cyclists in new development. Transport for London is carrying out a comprehensive review of cycle parking standards; the first results of this work have informed early alterations to the 2011 London Plan.

| Year | Daily Cycle stages (millions) | Cycle mode share (percentage) | |------|-------------------------------|------------------------------| | 2001 | 0.32 | 1.2 | | 2002 | 0.32 | 1.2 | | 2003 | 0.37 | 1.4 | | 2004 | 0.38 | 1.4 | | 2005 | 0.41 | 1.6 | | 2006 | 0.47 | 1.7 | | 2007 | 0.47 | 1.6 | | 2008 | 0.49 | 1.7 | | 2009 | 0.51 | 1.8 | | 2010 | 0.54 | 1.9 |

Source: TfL Planning, Travel in London Report 4, table 2.2 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 16

Achieve a reduced reliance on the private car and a more sustainable modal split for journeys

**Target:** A 50% increase in passengers and freight transported on the Blue Ribbon Network from 2011-2021

3.69 For passenger transport, Table 3.21 includes figures for passenger journeys on boat operators using TfL London River Services piers and the Thames Clipper Savoy (London Eye from November 2007) to Woolwich Arsenal service. These exclude a number of other services working from independent piers. Figures also include passengers on river tours and charter boats. Ticket sales count both single and return tickets as one journey on all services except Thames Clippers.

3.70 Table 3.21 shows that the number of passengers on the Thames increased until 2010. Despite the small decline in 2011, the amount of passengers over the baseline situation in 2001 has still increased by 163%. Following the events of 7 July 2005, passenger numbers on leisure services fell significantly, but subsequently recovered to previous levels. Passenger numbers on the riverbus services have shown significant growth since July 2005. In November 2007, Thames Clippers’ riverbus service was expanded to run between Waterloo (BA London Eye) and the O2 at a 10-20-minute frequency throughout the day and every 30 minutes in the late evening. Strong growth in riverbus and leisure services continued in 2008/9 due to the relative weakness of the pound attracting visitors to London and a successful programme of events at the O2 boosting Thames Clippers’ patronage.

3.71 In October 2011, a new pier was opened at St George Wharf, Vauxhall – and the Thames Clippers service extended further west. Through the Mayor’s River Concordat Group, improvements to river services, such as the introduction of Oyster Pay As You Go, enhanced signage to piers and new mapping and customer information, has supported the development of river passenger services. The recent very slight overall fall is due to a decrease in river tours whilst the riverbus and charters continue to grow. The slight dip is linked to the impact of the economic downturn; over the long-term, growth is expected to continue. The provision of improved facilities including new and extended piers and further integration of river services into the wider transport network should facilitate this. In addition, enhanced river services will be offered during the London 2012 Games, and two piers in Central London are earmarked for expansion (Tower Pier and London Eye Pier), which will help relieve the congested central section of the River.

3.72 It should also be noted that the figures do not include the Woolwich Ferry, which accounts annually for an additional two million passenger journeys with a significant 400,000 increase from 2009/10 to 2010/11. Table 3.21 Passengers on the River Thames

| Year | Number of passengers | % change on previous year | |-----------------------|----------------------|---------------------------| | April 2000 – March 2001 | 1,573,830 | - | | April 2001 – March 2002 | 1,739,236 | + 10.5 | | April 2002 – March 2003 | 2,030,300 | + 16.7 | | April 2003 – March 2004 | 2,113,800 | + 4.1 | | April 2004 – March 2005 | 2,343,276 | + 10.9 | | April 2005 – March 2006 | 2,374,400 | + 1.3 | | April 2006 - March 2007 | 2,746,692 | + 15.7 | | April 2007 - March 2008 | 3,078,100 | + 12.1 | | April 2008 – March 2009 | 3,892,693 | + 26.5 | | April 2009 – March 2010 | 4,188,530 | + 7.6 | | April 2010 – March 2011 | 4,142,226 | - 1.1 |

Source: TfL London Rivers Services

3.73 Table 3.22 deals with cargo carried by river. A significant proportion of the freight transported on the River Thames in the capital is aggregates for the construction industry. The demand/opportunities of this industry have over time significantly influenced changes in trade. This industry has been especially hard hit by the economic conditions. However, significant construction projects including, for example, the Thames Tunnel and Crossrail mean that the PLA remains optimistic for the medium term prospects of freight on the River Thames in London. This is also reflected in the water freight demand forecast published as part of the current review of Safeguarded Wharves (see following link for further details http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/spg/safeguarded-wharves-review). Sufficient wharf capacity is essential to allow freight trade on the Thames to grow.

Table 3.22 Cargo trade on the River Thames within Greater London

| Year | Tonnes of cargo | % change on previous year | |------|-----------------|---------------------------| | 2001 | 10,757,000 | - | | 2002 | 9,806,000 | + 9% | | 2003 | 9,236,000 | + 6% | | 2004 | 8,743,000 | - 5% | | 2005 | 9,288,000 | + 6% | | 2006 | 9,337,000 | + 0.5% | | 2007 | 8,642,000 | - 7% | | 2008 | 9,312,000 | + 8% | | 2009 | 8,146,000 | - 13% | | 2010 | 7,754,000 | - 5% |

Source: Port of London Authority KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 17

Increase in the number of jobs located in areas of high PTAL values

**Target:** Maintain at least 50 per cent of B1 development in PTAL zones 5-6

3.74 This indicator aims to show that high-density employment generators such as offices are mainly located in areas with good access to public transport (defined as having a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 5 or 6 on a scale of 0 to 6, with 0 being the lowest and 6 the highest). The B1 use class includes (a) offices, (b) research & development and (c) light industrial uses. LDD breaks down proposed B1 floorspace into these three broad categories as far as possible, although the planning system does not restrict changes between the categories within the B1 use class.

3.75 The percentage of B1 floorspace approved within areas with a high PTAL value is 63% (see Table 3.23), well above the 50% target and a marked improvement on last year where a number of large redevelopment schemes were approved in areas awaiting planned improvements in the transport infrastructure. The proportion of office floorspace approved with a high PTAL value is even higher at 72.5%.

| PTAL level | floorspace (m²) | % | floorspace (m²) | % | |------------|----------------|---|----------------|---| | 5 or 6 | 601,916 | 63.1 | 591,329 | 72.5 | | 4 or less | 352,327 | 36.9 | 224,525 | 27.5 | | Total floorspace | 954,243 | 36.9 | 815,854 | 27.5 |

Source: London Development Database - PTAL copyright Transport for London

3.76 It should be noted that only permissions with 1,000m² or more of proposed B1 floorspace from either new build or changes of use are recorded. The figures are “gross” as they do not exclude existing floorspace lost to demolition.

3.77 The PTAL is measured from the location of the site marker as entered onto the London Development Database system. This will usually be near the centre of the site. On large redevelopment sites the PTAL may vary across the site with the lowest rating being near the centre. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 18

Protection of biodiversity habitat

**Target:** No net loss of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs)

3.78 The London Development Database records the following conservation designations:

- Statutory Site of Special Scientific Interest,
- Site of Metropolitan Importance,
- Site of Borough Grade 1 Importance
- Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance
- Site of Local Importance.

3.79 Table 3.24 records all permissions granted in 2010/11 which include areas with any of these conservation designations. Open space designations such as Green Belt, MOL and Local Open Spaces are addressed in KPI 3.

3.80 There have been ten approvals of planning permissions on protected sites of importance for nature conservation during 2010/11 resulting in a total net loss of approximately 1.3 hectares. This is considerably lower than the 9.5 hectares recorded in 2009/10. The only major loss is to permit a residential scheme in Crystal Palace Park which will help to finance the regeneration of the park and its facilities.

| borough | permission reference | protected area affected by dev (ha) | comment | net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |---------|----------------------|-----------------------------------|---------|-----------------------------------| | Bromley | 07/03897/O UT | 0.973 | Residential development on part of Crystal Palace Park designated as a SSSI is part of the wider scheme to improve the park as a whole | 0.973 | | Lambeth | 10/03180/R G3 | 0.025 | Creation of a new playground within Streatham Common. Considered to be ancillary to primary use as a park so no net loss. | 0 | | Islington | P092717 | 0.024 | Residential development will include a small area of rough grassland of Borough Grade 1 Importance not currently accessible to the public. | 0.024 | | Sutton | C2011/63884 | 0.008 | Provision of a riding school on a site of Borough Grade 1 Importance will require a small permanent structure to be built. | 0.008 | | Barnet | H/03451/10 | 0.280 | Provision of a children’s play area on land of Borough Grade 2 importance is considered to be ancillary to primary use as a park so no net loss. | 0 | | borough | permission reference | protected area affected by dev (ha) | comment | net loss of conservation sites (ha) | |-----------------------|----------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Enfield | TP/09/1706 | 0.03 | Construction of two houses on a former garage site will include a small area on the edge of a green corridor of Borough Grade 2 Importance within the site. | 0.03 | | Barnet | H/04617/08 | 2.97 | This change of use of agricultural land of Local Importance to a cemetery is not considered to affect its conservation status. | 0 | | Kingston upon Thames | 10/10154/F UL | 0.035 | The redevelopment of Ellingham Primary School will result in a small loss of the area of the playing fields of Local Importance | 0.035 | | Newham | 10/00557 | 0.28 | Construction of a “youth hub” and sports building in Plashett Park will see a net loss of open area of Local Importance | 0.235 | | Total Area (Gross hectares): | | 4.625 | | 1.305 |

Source: London Development Database KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 19

Increase in municipal waste recycled or composted and elimination of waste to landfill by 2031

Target: At least 45 per cent of waste recycled/composted by 2015 and 0 per cent of biodegradable or recyclable waste to landfill by 2031

3.81 Table 3.25 shows that the total amount of local authority collected waste has continued to decline, decreasing by 2 per cent since 2009/10. It also shows that London's recycling rate for local authority collected waste has increased steadily over the previous ten years, reaching 28 per cent in 2010/11. The amount of local authority collected waste sent to landfill has been steadily declining, accounting for 4 per cent less of the total waste disposed of by London’s local authorities in 2009/10.

3.82 Household waste accounts for the greatest proportion of local authority collected waste. Table 3.25 indicates that London’s household recycling rate has also increased to now 33% in 2010/11, although London has a lower household recycling rate than any other region in England.

Table 3.25 Waste treatment methods of London’s local authority collected waste (thousands of tonnes)

| treatment method | 2000/01 | 2001/02 | 2002/03 | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |---------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | landfill | 3,207 | 3,244 | 3,163 | 3,021 | 2,856 | 2,692 | 2,404 | 2,209 | 1,946 | 1,882 | 1,696 | | percentage | 72 | 73 | 71 | 70 | 65 | 64 | 57 | 53 | 49 | 49 | 45 | | energy from waste | 886 | 842 | 872 | 826 | 869 | 767 | 929 | 919 | 912 | 803 | 896 | | percentage | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 22 | 22 | 23 | 21 | 24 | | recycling/composting | 344 | 351 | 410 | 494 | 643 | 763 | 844 | 925 | 994 | 1,060 | 1,081 | | percentage | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 25 | 27 | 28 | | other¹ | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 59 | 101 | 123 | 117 | 130 | | percentage | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | | total² | 4,438 | 4,438 | 4,446 | 4,342 | 4,370 | 4,223 | 4,235 | 4,154 | 3,975 | 3,862 | 3,802 |

Source: Defra Waste Statistics, 2011, www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats

¹‘Other’ includes material which is sent for Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT), mixed municipal waste sent for Anaerobic Digestion (AD) and that disposed through other treatment processes

²‘Total’ may exceed the sum of rows above; this is accounted for by incineration without energy from waste, which does not exceed 500 tonnes of London’s local authority collected waste since 2005/06 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 20

Reduce carbon dioxide emissions through new development

**Target:** Annual average percentage carbon dioxide emissions savings for strategic developments proposals

progressing towards zero carbon in residential development by 2016 and zero carbon in all development by 2019.

3.83 Policy 5.2 of the London Plan published in July 2011 sets out a stepped approach to reaching the zero carbon targets – see Tables 3.26 and 3.27.

| Table 3.26 London Plan policy 5.2 carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets for residential buildings | | --- | | **Year** | **improvement on 2010 Building Regulations** | | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2031 | zero carbon |

| Table 3.27 London Plan policy 5.2 carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets for non-domestic buildings | | --- | | **Year** | **improvement on 2010 Building Regulations** | | 2010-2013 | 25 per cent | | 2013-2016 | 40 per cent | | 2016-2019 | as per Building Regulations | | 2019-2031 | zero carbon |

3.84 An analysis of the energy assessment evaluations relating to Stage II planning applications determined by the Mayor between 1 January and 31 December 2010 was undertaken by the GLA in 2011 to establish the projected carbon dioxide savings secured from these schemes. The assessment was made against the 2006 Building Regulations and showed an approximate 50 per cent reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions beyond the minimum requirements of 2006 building regulations. However, this Indicator reflects the revised Building Regulations which came into force on 6th April 2010. The 2010 regulations require a 25 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions relative to the 2006 regulations. Therefore the total regulated carbon dioxide savings in 2010 over and above a baseline of a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development are approximately 33 per cent.

3.85 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) produces the biggest carbon dioxide savings of each of the elements of the energy hierarchy. It accounted

______________________________________________________________________

11 See Energy Planning. Monitoring the Impact of London Plan Energy Policies in 2010, GLA, 2011 - http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Monitoring%20the%20impact%20of%20the%20London%20Plan%20Policies%20in%202010.pdf

12 The carbon dioxide emissions controlled by Building Regulations such as emissions generated from hot water, space heating, cooling and fans

13 1. Be lean: use less energy, 2. Be clean: supply energy efficiently, 3. Be green: use renewable energy for 50 per cent of all the projected carbon dioxide savings secured in 2010. Well over a third of the projected savings were due to energy efficiency. Renewables accounted for 10 per cent of the overall savings.\\textsuperscript{14}

3.86 The carbon dioxide savings from developments where CHP is unsuitable are substantially less than those with CHP. As such, developments unable to obtain energy from CHP are more likely to exceed the carbon dioxide reduction targets in the London Plan.

\\textsuperscript{14} These figures are based on 2006 Building Regulations – as set out in the Energy Monitoring report KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 21

Increase in energy generated from renewable sources.

**Target:** Production of 8550(^{15}) GWh of energy from renewable sources by 2026 (target has been developed in accordance with a Regional Renewable Energy Assessment)

3.87 This renewable energy generation figure has been developed using data in the Decentralised Energy Capacity Study Phase 2: Deployment Potential(^{16}). The renewable energy generation figure includes potential energy production from photovoltaics, solar water heating, ground source heat pumps, air source heat pumps and wind, hydro, biomass and energy from waste technologies. The study includes five scenarios that consider a variety of assumptions in relation to energy policy, delivery and prices. Scenario 5 – Coordinated action was used to develop the renewable energy generation figure for this Indicator. The study covers the period up to 2031, with five-year intervals and therefore the figure for 2025 was selected.

| Table 3.28 Estimate of renewable energy installed capacity in London for 2010 | |---------------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------| | Capacity (MW) | biomass | landfill gas | photo voltaics | solar water heating | wind | heat pumps | total | | Commercial renewable energy installations | 3.0 | 20.8 | 0.1 | 0 | 5.6 | 0 | 56.6 | | London Plan policies | 50.3 | 0 | 3.0 | 3.5 | 2.6 | 14.7 | 74.1 | | Schemes registered Under the Feed-in Tariff | 0 | 0 | 1.7 | 0 | 0.008 | 0 | 1.7 | | Low Carbon Buildings Programme | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | | Major PV Demonstration Programme | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.0 | | SELCHP and Edmonton EfW (biomass element) | 37.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 37.8 | | Total (MW) | 91.1 | 20.8 | 5.9 | 3.6 | 8.2 | 14.8 | 173 | | Total (GWh) | 638 | 173 | 4.3 | 2.3 | 14.4 | 17.9 | 858 |

Source: Decentralised energy capacity study Phase 1: Technical assessment (pg11)(^{17})

______________________________________________________________________

(^{15}) Figure has only become available since the publication of the London Plan.

(^{16}) [http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%202%20report%20-%20Deployment%20potential.pdf](http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%202%20report%20-%20Deployment%20potential.pdf)

(^{17}) Technical report: [http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%201%20report%20-%20Technical%20assessment.pdf](http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/DE%20Study%20Phase%201%20report%20-%20Technical%20assessment.pdf) KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 22

Increase in Urban Greening

**Target:** Increase total area of green roofs in the CAZ

3.89 Green roofs have been identified as a suitable indicator for urban greening. Green roof information is currently not routinely captured through the London Development Database or any other means but data on installations collected from manufacturers are available. They show that the total area of green roofs in London is increasing. Whilst no current data are available, between 2004 and 2008 approximately 50,000m² of green roofs were added per year across Greater London, with around 10,000m² per year in the CAZ alone. We will continue to work with manufacturers to obtain data on installations.

3.90 Work is underway to identify robust arrangements for monitoring delivery against this KPI. It may be possible for the London Development Database to monitor green roofs more accurately. However, this depends on the London boroughs agreeing to the provision of relevant data as part of the current information scheme review. Further details will be given in next year’s AMR. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 23

Improve London's Blue Ribbon Network

Target: Restore 15km of rivers and streams\* 2009 - 2015 and an additional 10km by 2020 (\*defined as main river by the Environment Agency – includes larger streams and rivers but can also include smaller watercourses of local significance)

3.91 Restoration is defined as a measure that results in a significant increase in diversity of hydromorphological features and or improved floodplain connectivity and the restoration of river function through essential physical or biological processes, including flooding, sediment transport and the facilitation of species movement.

3.92 The Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group, co-ordinating the implementation of this aspect of London’s Biodiversity Action Plan and managed by the Environment Agency, recommends that projects have post project appraisals. For the steering group to enable a project to be assessed as restoration, the following assessments can be made.

- River Habitat Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Urban River Survey (undertaking pre and post project surveys are good practice).
- Pre and post fixed point photography.

3.93 The time of restoration of a habitat is defined as the point at which the necessary construction works have been carried out on the ground to the extent that the habitat is likely to develop without further construction work. For schemes that are phased over several years, an estimate of the length gained is made for each year ensuring that there is no double counting. In order to verify that habitats have been created and conditions secured, scheme details need to be submitted to the Rivers & Streams HAP Steering Group. Once the outputs have been verified then the scheme can be reported and placed on Biodiversity Action Reporting system.

3.94 The following Table 3.29 shows consistent restoration of 1.5 km p/a and above each year since 2007. 2011 represents the second largest restoration figure recorded. With over 6.8 km p/a since the 2008 base year this represents satisfactory progress towards meeting the 2015 target of 15 km, and this is without for example the restoration of the Lee as part of the Olympic Park.

3.95 There is greater uncertainty associated with the additional 10 km target. However, the All London Green Grid and River Basin Management Plan should facilitate further achievements. Table 3.29 River restoration London 2000 to 2010

| Year | restoration (metres) | cumulative restoration (metres) | |------|----------------------|---------------------------------| | 2000 | 680 | 680 | | 2001 | 150 | 830 | | 2002 | 600 | 1430 | | 2003 | 2300 | 3730 | | 2004 | 500 | 4230 | | 2005 | 0 | 4320 | | 2006 | 100 | 4330 | | 2007 | 5100 | 9430 | | 2008 | 2000 | 11430 | | 2009 | 1500 | 12930 | | 2010 | 1808 | 14738 | | 2011 | 3519 | 18257 |

Source: Rivers and Streams Habitat Action Plan Steering Group

3.96 It should be noted that the London Biodiversity Action Plan includes, alongside this KPI, a target for restoration targets for maintenance and enhancement(^{18}) – reflected in London Plan policy 7.19 (Table 7.3).

(^{18}) Includes instream habitat enhancement, channel-narrowing, removal of weirs or barriers, establishment of buffer zones through riparian fencing or tree planting, and wetland creation within 10 metres of the channel. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR 24

Protecting and improving London’s heritage and public realm

**Target:** Reduction in the proportion of designated heritage assets at risk as a percentage of the total number of designated heritage assets in London

3.97 In last year’s AMR the target concentrated on trend data for listed buildings only. The target has now been expanded to include all designated heritage assets, including World Heritage Sites, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields.

3.98 Table 3.30 shows the number and condition of all designated heritage assets. All categories have remained stable except listed buildings and conservation areas which have increased by 127 listed buildings and 12 conservation areas respectively. The only category of designated assets that has reduced in number is scheduled monuments, which has decreased by 1 monument. This is due to the de-scheduling of Harmondsworth Barn as a scheduled monument and its designation as a listed building.

3.99 In terms of designated assets at risk, between 2011 and 2010 the situation has either remained the same or there has been an improvement. For listed buildings, there were 475 at risk in 2011, 19 less than the previous year, representing a reduction of 2.53%. For scheduled monuments, whilst the total number has reduced by 1, there has been a reduction of at risk assets from 25.8% to 22.7%, representing 35 monuments that are now not at risk. For conservation areas, the proportion of areas at risk reduced from 8.1% to 6.4%. However, it should be noted that the London Borough of Greenwich did not take part in English Heritage’s Conservation Area Survey, therefore the 6.4% is only representative of 941 conservation areas.

3.100 World Heritage Sites, registered parks and gardens and the one registered battlefield (at Barnet) have all stayed the same in terms of both their number and their condition.

| Table 3.30 Number and condition of designated heritage assets | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | **2010** | **2011** | | number | % at risk | number | % at risk | | World Heritage Sites | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | | Listed Buildings | 18,618 | 2.65% | 18,745 | 2.53% | | Conservation Areas | 988 | 8.1% | 1000 | 6.4% | | Schedule Monuments | 155 | 25.8% | 154 | 22.7% | | Registered Parks and Gardens | 149 | 5.4% | 149 | 5.4% | | Registered Battlefield | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

Source: English Heritage

3.101 Please note that LB Greenwich did not take part in the Conservation Area survey. For detail on individual designated assets, please visit [http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/](http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/heritage-at-risk/). English Heritage also provide a summary document with the number and condition of all designated assets. CHAPTER 4

ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS CHAPTER FOUR ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND STATISTICS

The inclusion of additional relevant performance measures and statistics helps to paint a broader picture of London’s performance.

PLANNING

Progress with SPGs, Opportunity Areas, Areas of Intensification, the Olympics and its Legacy

Progress with SPGs

4.1 The Mayor produces Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) documents to provide further detail on particular policies in the London Plan. The Mayor is in the process of revising, updating and reformatting the SPGs produced to underpin the 2008 London Plan. The following SPGs are available in draft on the following website http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/vision/supplementary-planning-guidance.

- Draft Shaping Neighbourhoods: Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (February 2012)
- Draft Tree and Woodland Strategies (January 2012)
- Draft Housing (December 2011)
- Draft Affordable Housing note (November 2011)
- Draft All London Green Grid (November 2011)
- Draft London’s Foundations (November 2011)
- Draft London World Heritage Sites - Guidance on Settings (October 2011)
- Draft Safeguarded Wharves Review 2011/2012 (October 2011)
- Draft Olympic Legacy (September 2011)
- Draft London View Management Framework (July 2011)

4.2 The programme of further work on new/updated SPGs is included in Annex 1 of the Implementation Plan http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/implementation-plan.

Progress with Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification

4.3 In the last year, the GLA has been working on a number of Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks (OAPF). The final Park Royal OAPF was published in January. The following were published for public consultation - Earl’s Court and West Kensington (March and November); White City (April); Harrow & Wealdstone (May); Olympic Legacy SPG (September); Upper Lee Valley (November) and London Riverside (December). Work also progressed on the Vauxhall/Nine Elms/ Battersea and Croydon OAPFs. Table 4.1 provides a comprehensive overview. | Name | Progress | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | **North London** | | | King's Cross | Northern ticket hall open at King’s Cross St. Pancras Underground. Work on the Boulevard and Goods Way has completed connecting the University of the Arts Central Saint Martins campus directly to the King’s Cross transport hub. Western concourse scheduled for completion, Spring 2012 | | Paddington | Span 4 of Paddington Station refurbishment ongoing. Works to implement Crossrail have begun. 33,000 sqm B1 business space completed. | | Euston | Euston Area Planning Framework adopted by borough April 2009. Initial discussions with LB Camden regarding potential work on OAPF relating in particular to HS2. | | Tottenham Court Road | Urban Design Framework has been produced. Opportunity Area Planning Framework not being pursued. | | Victoria | Ongoing residential and commercial development. | | Upper Lee Valley including Tottenham Hale | Opportunity Area Planning Framework currently being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the Boroughs of Enfield, Hackney, Haringey and Waltham Forest and the Lea Valley Park Authority. Public consultation took place in 2011. Anticipated completion, 2012 | | Cricklewood/Brent Cross | Outline Planning Consent was issued by the Local Planning Authority on 28 October 2010. | | Colindale | Borough Area Action Plan (AAP) for Colindale was adopted in March 2010. Outline consent granted for hospital site. Beaufort Park later phases under construction. | | Mill Hill East | No longer an Opportunity Area | | Haringey Heartlands/Wood Green | Ongoing development | | West Hampstead interchange | No planning Framework in place. Planning application submitted for residential and commercial development | | Holborn | See Tottenham Court Road | | Farringdon/Smithfield | Crossrail station construction work in progress with connection to Thameslink. | | **North East London** | | | Isle of Dogs | Ongoing residential and commercial development | | City Fringe | Opportunity Area Planning Framework to be discussed in 2012 with partner boroughs. Ongoing residential and commercial development. | | Lower Lea Valley, inc Stratford | Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance being produced in house by the GLA working closely with the four host boroughs. Public consultation took place in 2011. Final publication, 2012 | | Name | Progress | |-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Royal Docks | Royal Docks Vision produced by the GLA and Newham Council in 2011. | | London Riverside | Opportunity Area Planning Framework y being produced jointly by the GLA and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in partnership with the LDA, TfL and the Boroughs of Newham, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. Public consultation took place during 2011/2012. Final publication, 2012 | | Ilford | Action Area Plan produced in 2006. Ongoing residential and commercial development. | | **South East London** | | | London Bridge | Ongoing residential and commercial development. Initial discussions re neighbourhood plan. | | Elephant and Castle | Supplementary Planning Document/Opportunity Area Planning Framework consulted on during early 2012. | | Deptford Creek/ Greenwich Riverside | Design for London has produced a design framework. | | Lewisham- Catford – New Cross | LB Lewisham using the North Lewisham Framework as the basis for the AAP. | | Greenwich Peninsula & Charlton Riverside West | Planning permission granted 2003. Implementation now underway. | | Woolwich, Thamesmead & Charlton Riverside East | Docklands Light Railway extension opened at Woolwich Arsenal in 2009. Up to 1,000 new homes have been developed at the Royal Arsenal. A further 2,000 homes have been built in Gallions Reach Urban Village in Thamesmead. | | Bexley Riverside | A Framework Plan and Regeneration Strategy has been developed for Erith Town Centre and Belvedere and a development brief has been prepared for the Erith Western Gateway sites. | | Canada Water/Surrey Quays | Area Action Plan prepared. Ongoing residential and commercial development | | Kidbrooke | Greenwich Council approved detailed proposals for Phase 1 of the regeneration on the site east of Sutcliffe Park including 449 houses and apartments. Building started in September 2009. Legal agreement signed for mixed use redevelopment proposals. | | **South West London** | | | Waterloo | Opportunity Area Planning Framework completed in 2007. Ongoing residential and commercial development. Initial discussions re redevelopment of Elizabeth House and Shell Centre | | Vauxhall/Nine Elms/ Battersea | Opportunity Area Planning Framework, final publication 2012. Commencement of Tideway Wharf development. | | Croydon | Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) to be consulted on in 2012. | | South Wimbledon/ Colliers Wood | Initial discussions with Merton Council re production of framework. | Table 4.1 Progress with Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification

| Name | Progress | |-------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | West London | | | Heathrow (including Hayes, West Drayton, | Opportunity Area Planning Framework being considered with potential initiation in 2012, working with local authorities and other stakeholders including BAA and landowners. | | Southall, Feltham, Bedfont Lakes and | | | Hounslow) | | | Park Royal/Willesden Junction | Opportunity Area Planning Framework published in 2011. | | Wembley | Draft Wembley Area Action Plan consulted on during 2011. Ongoing residential and commercial development. | | White City | Draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework consulted on during 2011. 2nd consultation during 2012. |

Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit

Progress with the Olympics and its Legacy

4.4 The development of the Olympic Park and venues continues apace (see the Olympic Delivery Authority website for more details: [http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen](http://www.london2012.com/making-it-happen)). The main venues are being prepared for the Games this summer and the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) has submitted its planning proposals for the Olympic Park (see link for more detail: [http://www.legacycompany.co.uk/legacy-communities-scheme](http://www.legacycompany.co.uk/legacy-communities-scheme)). Work is also well advanced to secure operators for the retained venues. Work has also started on the Mayor’s Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance (for September 2011 draft see [www.london.gov.uk/publication/olympic-legacy-supplementary-planning-guidance](http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/olympic-legacy-supplementary-planning-guidance) - see also London Plan policy 2.4), and the Mayor of London is progressing his proposals to reform the OPLC into a Mayoral Development Corporation, as defined in the Government’s Localism Act. This will drive forward regeneration and development in the area – for more details: [www.london.gov.uk/mdcconsultation](http://www.london.gov.uk/mdcconsultation)

4.5 The Mayor is also working in partnership with government and the boroughs to maximise the wider socio-economic benefits across London from the transport investment associated with the Games, and to capture the volunteering, employment, skills and business development legacies. He remains committed to the range of work being undertaken with the six east London Host Boroughs to achieve ‘convergence’ between those boroughs and the rest of London identified as a particular priority by Policy 2.4 in the London Plan. Responses to major applications and development plan consultation

Strategic planning applications referred to the Mayor

4.6 The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 came into force on 6 April 2008 and requires local planning authorities to refer strategic planning applications to the Mayor (the Order defines what is strategic). The Order requires the Mayor to provide a statement of whether he considers the application to conform to the London Plan and the reasons for this conclusion within six weeks of receipt of the referral. The Mayor has the power to direct a borough to refuse planning permission but he does not have the power to direct a borough to grant planning permission. On certain applications, which meet criteria set out in the Order, he can however direct a borough that he will become the local planning authority and determine the application himself.

4.7 The Order applies to applications submitted on or after the 6 April 2008. The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 still applies to those applications submitted before the 6 April 2008.

4.8 In spite of the continuing uncertainty brought on from the economic crisis, 2011 has seen an encouraging increase in the number of applications referred to the Mayor (see Table 4.2). The increase from 258 in 2010, to 300 in 2011 represents a rise of 16%. This represents a minor increase of 2.25% in referable applications in 2011 when compared to the average number of referrals across the previous 4 years. However, this increase in activity is not uniform across London, with the Inner London boroughs displaying a 7.5% increase in referable cases (in spite of such boroughs as Hammersmith and Fulham showing a 52% increase in activity to the 4 year average) whilst the Outer London boroughs show a significant increase in referable cases of 20%. The City of London has seen another dramatic increase from 5 referable cases in 2010 to 12 in 2011; however it still remains well below the high of 20 in 2007.

4.9 This year also saw the Mayor use his “call-in” powers in a further three planning applications. The Mayor granted permission for the Saatchi Block application in Fitzrovia following Camden’s decision to refuse the application and he granted permission for the SITA Recycling Park in Mitcham following Merton’s decision to refuse the application. The Mayor also issued a notice to the London Borough of Southwark stating that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the Eileen House application on Newington Causeway, Elephant and Castle.

4.10 Section 42 (c) of the 2008 Planning Act places a requirement on applicants of schemes that will be submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) to consult with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Section 49 of the Act requires the applicant to have regard to any response made by the Mayor. In accordance with Section 56 (2) (c) of the Act, once an application has been submitted to and accepted by the IPC the applicant must consult the GLA again, where the Mayor can then make representations to the IPC. The IPC is also required to invite the GLA to submit a local impact report under Section 60 (2) (b) of the Act.

4.11 The Localism Act seeks to abolish the IPC and transfer its functions to a new body to be known as the Major Infrastructure Planning Unit, which will report to the Secretary of State, who will make the final decisions on applications. This is to take effect from April 2012, however, it is understood that the role of the GLA in the process will remain unchanged.

4.12 This year saw the Mayor receive a total of three consultation referrals under the above Act for the Thames Tunnel Phase Two consultation, the North London Reinforcement Project and for the Offshore Wind Farm Extension at Kentish Flats. | Borough | 2000-2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | total 2000-2010 | |-------------------------|-----------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-----------------| | City of London | 72 | 16 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 131 | | Barking & Dagenham | 36 | 4 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 81 | | Barnet | 19 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 6 | 14 | 70 | | Bexley | 21 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 56 | | Brent | 31 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 70 | | Bromley | 54 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 83 | | Camden | 15 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 51 | | Croydon | 49 | 6 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 100 | | Ealing | 51 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 89 | | Enfield | 32 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 59 | | Greenwich | 52 | 12 | 28 | 13 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 138 | | Hackney | 38 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 13 | 7 | 9 | 91 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 39 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 86 | | Haringey | 13 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 32 | | Harrow | 12 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 5 | 13 | 55 | | Havering | 38 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 13 | 81 | | Hillingdon | 72 | 12 | 15 | 23 | 15 | 9 | 10 | 156 | | Hounslow | 35 | 7 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 10 | 14 | 91 | | Islington | 21 | 5 | 13 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 6 | 68 | | Kensington & Chelsea | 10 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 33 | | Kingston upon Thames | 19 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 32 | | Lambeth | 44 | 13 | 7 | 13 | 4 | 13 | 7 | 101 | | Lewisham | 26 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 64 | | Merton | 32 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 61 | | Newham | 74 | 19 | 28 | 20 | 16 | 30 | 20 | 207 | | Redbridge | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 29 | | Richmond upon Thames | 24 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 43 | | Southwark | 82 | 21 | 13 | 20 | 15 | 12 | 13 | 176 | | Sutton | 11 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 39 | | Tower Hamlets | 129 | 36 | 41 | 47 | 30 | 23 | 33 | 339 | | Waltham Forest | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 29 | | Wandsworth | 34 | 14 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 85 | | Westminster | 59 | 15 | 33 | 26 | 11 | 18 | 15 | 177 | | Totals | 1,269 | 261 | 341 | 334 | 240 | 258 | 300 | 3,003 |

Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit Responses to Development Plan consultations

4.13 Following the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all local authorities are required to produce a local development framework. The local development framework is a portfolio of local development documents, comprising development plan documents and supplementary planning documents.

4.14 Borough local development schemes (LDS) are the local planning authority’s work plan for the production of local development documents (LDD) that will collectively form the Local Development Framework for each of the boroughs. Every London borough produced an original LDS by April 2005. These have been revised at different periods since.

4.15 In June 2008 a new power for the Mayor over borough LDSs was introduced. The GLA Act 2007 amended the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act so that the Mayor may direct that amendments be made to the LDS if it is necessary to ensure that key policies of the London Plan are reflected in the LDD work programme. The Mayor may also direct a local planning authority to prepare a revision to their LDS. In 2011, the Mayor approved 10 LDSs and did not direct amendments to any of them. The Mayor’s powers over borough LDSs have been abolished by the Localism Act 2011.

4.16 All London borough LDDs are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Boroughs are required to consult the Mayor at each statutory stage in the process of preparation of development plan documents. They are also required to request the Mayor’s opinion on general conformity at the same time as the document is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

4.17 Boroughs are also required to consult the Mayor on supplementary planning documents (SPD) to the extent that the council thinks he is affected by the document. The Mayor has indicated to boroughs the types of documents he wishes to be consulted on (affordable housing, transport, planning obligations, sustainable development, environmental protection and climate change, waste and planning briefs for sites which could result in referable applications). During 2011 the Mayor responded to sixteen SPD consultations.

4.18 In order to achieve general conformity of LDDs the Mayor has worked proactively with the boroughs, commenting on and holding meetings to discuss informal drafts of documents and meetings to discuss the Mayor’s response to consultation. Table 4.3 summarises all the development plan related consultations that the Mayor has responded to in 2011.

4.19 In 2011 the Mayor responded to 58 consultations on development plan documents (DPDs). GLA officers have also responded to informal drafts of documents in a number of instances. The Mayor gave an opinion of general conformity on 37 DPDs at the pre-submission or submission stages. Most of these DPDs were originally found not to be in general conformity with the London Plan. However ongoing negotiations before and during examinations in public (EIPs) resulted in a number of changes to bring the documents into general conformity with the London Plan. Officers attended six Core Strategy EIPs: Haringey, Barnet, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Bexley and Newham. They also attended two Waste Plan’s EIPs for East London and South London.

| Area | DPDs | |-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | Barking Station Master Plan SPD | | Barnet | Core Strategy, Pre-submission | | | Development Management Policies DPD | | | Local Development Scheme | | Bexley | Erith Western Gateway SPD | | | Site Specific Allocations Document post submission changes | | Brent | Wembley Area Action Plan, Issues and Options | | Bromley | Core Strategy Issues Development Plan Document | | Camden | Site Allocations DPD | | | Design, Housing and Sustainability SPD | | | Camden Local Development Scheme | | City of London | Local Development Scheme | | | City of London Protected Views SPD | | Croydon | Croydon Core Strategy, pre-submission | | | Planning Obligations SPD | | Ealing | Ealing Core Strategy Pre Examination amendments | | Enfield | Draft Section 106 SPD | | | Enfield Local Development Scheme | | Greenwich | Core Strategy Pre submission | | Hackney | Dalston Area Action Plan | | | Hackney Central Area Action Plan | | | Manor House Area Action Plan | | Hammersmith & Fulham | Core Strategy Further representations | | | South Fulham Riverside SPD | | | Proposed Submission Development Management DPD | | Haringey | Sustainable Design and Construction SPD | | | Core Strategy Update | | | Haringey Core Strategy (post examination) | | Harrow | Harrow and Wealdstone AAP | | | Harrow Core Strategy pre-submission | | Havering | Gypsy and Travellers’ Sites DPD | | Hillingdon | Core Strategy Pre-Submission | | | Core Strategy proposed pre-examination amendments | | Hounslow | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy pre submission | | Islington | Development Management Policies | | | Bunhill and Clerkenwell AAP | | | Site Allocations DPD | | | Site Allocations DPD | | | Finsbury Local Plan | | Area | DPDs | |-----------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Kensington & Chelsea | | | Kingston upon Thames | Core Strategy, Submission | | | Kingston Core Strategy, Further Consultation | | Lambeth | | | Lewisham | Lewisham Town Centre AAP Further Options | | Merton | Merton Local Development Scheme | | Newham | Core Strategy Submission | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy, Post EiP minor amendments | | Redbridge | Cross rail Corridor AAP (Submission stage) | | | Redbridge Crossrail Corridor AAP, EiP consultation | | | Core Strategy Review | | | Sustainable Design and Construction SPD | | Richmond | Stag Brewery SPD | | | Development Management Plan Document - Proposed Post-Submission changes | | | Twickenham AAP Options Stage | | | Local Development Scheme | | Southwark | Canada Water Post Submission Changes | | | Local Development Scheme | | Sutton | Site Development Policies | | | Site Development Policies DPD (additional Sutton town centre and update climate change policies and proposals). | | Tower Hamlets | Site and Placemaking DPD | | | Fish Island AAP Engagement Document | | | Development Management Plan DPD | | | Bromley-by-Bow Masterplan | | Waltham Forest | Inclusive Design and Accessible Housing SPD | | | North Olympic Fringe AAP Preferred Options | | | Core Strategy proposed submission | | | Development Management Policies preferred options | | | Local Development Scheme | | | Core Strategy Post Publications Changes | | | Walthamstow Town Centre AAP | | | Blackhorse Lane AAP | | Wandsworth | Site Specific Site Allocations DPD | | | Site Specific Allocations Document post submission changes | | | Development Management Policies & Site Specific Allocations DPD | | | Wandsworth Draft Planning Obligations | | Westminster | Draft Public Realm Credit SPD | | | Draft Trees and Public Realm SPD | | | Development Management Plan DPD Options consultation | Table 4.3 Summary of activity on Borough Local Development Frameworks during 2011

| Area | DPDs | |---------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | East London | East London Waste Authority Joint Waste DPD | | | East London Joint Waste DPD – Consultation on post hearing changes | | South London | South London Waste DPD Submission | | | South London Waste Plan (post EIP Amendments) | | West London | West London Waste Plan | | North London | North London Waste Authority Borough Joint Waste DPD |

Source GLA Planning Decisions Unit

Progress with Core Strategy Development Plan Documents

4.20 Table 4.4 provides an overview of progress with Core Strategies in the London boroughs.

Table 4.4 Core strategy progress (position as of January 2012)

| Core Strategy stage | no. of boroughs | borough | |----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Core Strategy Issues and Options yet to be published | 0 | | | Have published Core Strategy Issues and Options | 1 | Bromley | | Have published Core Strategy Preferred Options | 1 | Hounslow | | Core Strategy pre submission or Submission to Secretary of State | 10 | Croydon | | | | Hillingdon | | | | Kingston upon Thames | | | | Haringey | | | | Harrow | | | | Bexley | | | | Ealing | | | | Greenwich | | | | Barnet | | | | Newham |

### Table 4.4 Core strategy progress (position as of January 2012)

| Core Strategy stage | no. of boroughs | borough | |---------------------------|-----------------|----------------------------------------------| | Core strategy adopted | 21 | Islington, Waltham Forest, Hammersmith & Fulham, City of London, Kensington & Chelsea, Southwark, Barking and Dagenham, Wandsworth, Tower Hamlets, Camden, Enfield, Havering, Redbridge, Richmond, Sutton, Hackney, Westminster, Lewisham, Lambeth, Brent, Merton |

4.21 Please note that many boroughs are progressing other DPDs at the same time as their Core Strategy or have adopted DPDs or site-specific Area Action Plans in advance of it, for example Kingston Upon Thames’s Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan and Hounslow’s Employment DPD. London Planning Awards

4.22 The Mayor, London First, the Royal Town Planning Institute and London Councils jointly organise the privately-sponsored annual London Planning Awards to showcase and celebrate good planning practice in the capital. The 2011/12 Awards Ceremony was held on 16 January 2012. Full details of the winning and commended entries are given in Table 4.5 below:

| Table 4.5 London Planning Awards – winners and commended entries | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | **Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Edward Lister’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 16 January 2012** |

1: **BEST BUILT PROJECT** (sponsored by CBRE)

**WINNER** for the unexpected, but totally successful juxtaposition of God and Mammon: **One New Change** submitted by Land Securities, with Jean Nouvel and Sidell Gibson

This well designed mixed retail and office development immediately adjacent to St Paul’s Cathedral achieves the almost impossible – the creative resolution of two apparently very different aims: delivering three floors of retail and five of office (including the biggest floor plates ever seen in the square mile), whilst respecting the constraints of its uniquely sensitive site. Not only has this highly sustainable complex successfully redefined Cheapside as a retail and dining destination, but the magnificent new views of St Paul’s now afforded from its rooftop terraces have significantly expanded the public realm.

**COMMENDATION** for the cool restraint of its sensitive design, and joyful remodelling of public spaces: **Sammy Ofer Wing, National Maritime Museum** submitted by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, with National Maritime Museum, CF Moller Architects, Purcell Miller Tritton, Churchman Landscape Architects and Malcolm Reading Consultants

This brilliantly-designed sympathetic intervention to the south west façade of the World Heritage Designated National Maritime Museum creates a magnificent new visitor entrance through joyful water-themed public spaces, successfully reorienting the museum and uniting it with Greenwich Park. Almost as good is what you don’t see – the servicing clutter cleared away, rationalised and improved, and the bulk of the new building cleverly located below ground.

2: **Best Built Project – Community Scale** (sponsored by Land Securities)

**WINNER** For the wholesale transformation it embodies: **St Paul’s Way Trust School** submitted by Astudio, with Bouygues UK and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets

This magnificent replacement school building now confidently faces the street – a complete turnaround from its predecessor. It is designed to an exceptionally high standard with dramatic interior spaces, using bold colours and simple materials, and includes a series of independently-accessed community spaces. Since completion last year, results have soared, the roll is full, and Professor Brian Cox has signed up as a school patron!

### Table 4.5 London Planning Awards – winners and commended entries

Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Edward Lister’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 16 January 2012

| 3: BEST CONCEPTUAL PROJECT (sponsored by Berwin Leighton Paisner) | WINNER For revealing long hidden delights, and the potential for far-reaching community benefit: **Walthamstow Wetlands** submitted by the London Borough of Waltham Forest | |---|---| | Revealing one of the capital’s best kept secrets – hidden for 150 years, though highlighted by Abercrombie – this multi-agency partnership project aims to open up 180 hectares of reservoirs in the Upper Lee Valley to form the capital’s largest wetland nature reserve. Accessible from 13 boroughs within 45 minutes, it will bring opportunities for outdoor learning to London’s most deprived communities. Provision for walking, cycling and bird watching will actively address health and wellbeing issues. |

| 4: BEST NEW PLACE TO LIVE (sponsored by Ardmore Group) | WINNER For its compelling approach to elegance and sustainability in inner city living: **Highbury Gardens** submitted by First Base with Homes and Communities Agency | |---|---| | This striking neoclassical development of 119 new homes on the Holloway Road provides 31 affordable key worker homes and 57 for intermediate rental. Designed around a substantial internal space with gardens and cycle parking, the scheme includes an impressive array of sustainability elements and is very well connected to public transport and local shops. |

| COMMENDATION For its carefully crafted response to the challenges of later years: **Triscott House** submitted by KKM Architects, with the London Borough of Hillingdon, Homes and Communities Agency and Breyer Group Plc. | |---|---| | Triscott House is an extra care scheme comprising 47 units located in Hayes which provides care and support for elderly people who wish to live with a measure of independence. Its design is carefully detailed, with sensitive use of interior colour to aid navigation, and features innovative ‘winter garden’ balconies. Its sustainability is exemplary, the scheme having achieved Level 5 of the Code for Sustainable Homes – the first extra care scheme to do so. |

| 5: BEST NEW PUBLIC SPACE (sponsored by Hogan Lovells) | WINNER For its playfulness and confident place-making: **Margaret McMillan Park** submitted by BDP, with the London Borough of Lewisham and The Landscape Group | |---|---| | Following extensive and inclusive public consultation, this once neglected and underused inner city park – incorporating pedestrian commuter route between New Cross Station and Deptford High Street – has been extensively reworked with new landscaping and planting, reclaimed timber sculptures, and new lighting, seating and signage. By common consent, this transformation has revitalised the neighbourhood, to the extent that the park has now become a destination in its own right. |

### Table 4.5 London Planning Awards – winners and commended entries

Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Edward Lister’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 16 January 2012

#### 6: BEST BUILT PROJECT FIVE YEARS ON (sponsored by GVA)

**WINNER** for its comprehensive approach to area regeneration, and for its ‘Va Va Vroom’: **Arsenal on the move** submitted by Savills Planning, with Arsenal Football Club, Anthony Green & Spencer and Populas Architects.

Much, much more than the simple relocation of a football club – if there could ever be such a thing – this project has morphed into the comprehensive regeneration of an entire London district. It encompasses the new Emirates Stadium and its extensive public realm; a new recycling centre and railway bridges; the successful residential conversion of the old Highbury ground; the provision of a total of 2,500 new homes, over 2,500 new jobs, and large scale retail, leisure and commercial space – and all carried out with extensive community involvement and intensive partnership working.

**COMMENDATION** For its restrained but colourful impact, and its significant contribution to the wider community: **The Home Office** submitted by Bouygues UK, with Ecovert (EFM), Infrared Capital Partners Ltd and Terry Farrell and Partners.

Where the notorious Marsham Street towers once blighted the skyline, this enlightened low rise development, with its generous use of colour, integrated public art, and high quality public realm, has totally transformed the local environment. The mix of uses – office, affordable housing, retail and community – has contributed positively to the local area, as has the high degree of permeability, new public footpaths through the site having restored ancient accessible street patterns. All in all, the fabric of this landmark building has worn extremely well. It looks good today as it did when it was first built.

#### 7: BEST HISTORIC BUILDING MANAGEMENT (sponsored by English Heritage)

**WINNER** For its dramatic but sensitive refurbishment, and for restoring a national icon: **St Pancras Chambers** submitted by the London Borough of Camden, with English Heritage and RHWL.

The majestic exterior and sumptuous interiors of the former Midland Grand Hotel – George Gilbert Scott’s Gothic revival masterpiece – have been brought back to life in this exemplary restoration and re-use of a Grade 1 listed building. To allow for viable hotel use, this sensitive (but no holds barred) refurbishment includes enabling development of residential apartments in the uppermost floors and a sensitive new build addition to the rear. The impressive outcome, seamlessly integrated with the intercontinental railway terminus, is a triumph of creative partnership working by public and private stakeholders alike. Table 4.5 London Planning Awards – winners and commended entries

Entry descriptions and award citations taken from the Mayor’s and Sir Edward Lister’s speeches at the London Planning Awards Ceremony, City Hall 16 January 2012

8: MAYOR’S AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE

WINNER For a spectacular transformation which echoes the ghosts of the past but embodies the spirit of the future: The Granary, Kings Cross submitted by the London Borough of Camden, with Stanton Williams Architects, Argent and English Heritage.

The astonishing transformation of the former granary and railway sheds located at the centre of the historic Kings Cross Eastern Goods Yard into a fully functioning arts university sees the part retention and restoration of historic buildings conjoined with dramatic new interventions to provide studio, workshop, teaching, library and administration space. The transition between the old and the new has been handled with great sensitivity, and the provision of a new public canalside square brings an enlightened focus to the wholesale regeneration of the surrounding area.

9: LIFETIME AWARD FOR PLANNING EXCELLENCE IN LONDON

WINNER On the occasion of his retirement from the GLA, that big fish in a reasonably-sized pond: Giles Dolphin, Assistant Director Planning

He has dedicated his career to the successful development of our city and personifies the mixture of high principle and seizing the main chance that is such a feature of our planning system. HOUSING AND DESIGN

Housing Provision Annual Monitor 2010/11

Introduction

4.23 This report provides further detail on housing provision in London in addition to the tables in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report. It is based largely on data provided by London boroughs to the London Development Database (LDD) maintained by the GLA. The LDD was established with government support and is widely regarded as the most authoritative source of information on housing provision in London.

4.24 The majority of this section deals with housing provision defined for the purpose of monitoring the London Plan: that is, net conventional supply from new build, conversions of existing residential buildings or changes of use. The Mayor’s London Housing Strategy sets out a separate and distinctly defined target for affordable housing delivery, comprising the gross number of affordable homes delivered through conventional supply or acquisitions of existing properties. The final part of this section covers affordable housing delivery according to this latter definition.

4.25 Borough-level maps and tables can be found at the end of the section.

4.26 Key points

- There were 17,977 net conventional housing completions in London in 2010/11.
- Taking into account net supply of 1,851 non self-contained units and a fall of 4,882 in the number of long-term empty homes, total housing provision was 24,710.
- New build accounted for 82% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 10%.
- Over the last three years net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 26,714 homes, split almost evenly between social rented and intermediate housing.
- Across all tenures, gross conventional housing supply was dominated by one or two bedroom homes, with 20% having three bedrooms or more, a slight increase from 18% in 2009/10.
- 38% of social housing supply in 2010/11 comprised homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 18% of market homes and only 5% of intermediate homes.
- 25% of net approvals and 31% of net starts in 2010/11 were for affordable housing.
- As of 31 March 2011, the net housing pipeline consisted of 170,000 homes.
- The average density of new housing completions in 2010/11 was 136 dwellings per hectare (dph), and the average density of approvals was 140 dph.

Total housing provision

4.29 Total housing provision in the London Plan consists of three elements: conventional housing supply, non self-contained bedspaces, and long-term vacant homes returning to use. KPI 5 in the main body of the report shows housing provision at borough level (see also Maps HPM1 and HPM2).

4.30 Figure 4.1 below shows the separate elements of total housing provision for the last five years. While net conventional supply has fallen significantly, this was partly offset in 2010/11 by a large fall in the number of homes empty for more than six months.

Figure 4.1 Housing provision 2006-07 to 2010-11

![Bar chart showing total housing provision, 2006/07 to 2010/11](chart)

Source: GLA

4.31 The figures for the decrease in long-term empty homes are taken from statistics published by the Department for Communities and Local Government, based on council tax returns from local authorities(^\\text{19}). This data source replaces figures taken from local authority Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA) returns, as DCLG are proposing to no longer collect data on empty homes when the HSSA is replaced by a revised housing form. HSSA data is however available for 2010/11 and in Table HPM1 is compared with council tax data(^\\text{20}). The total decrease in long-term empty homes based on HSSA data is just 1,408, though this figure should be treated with caution as two boroughs did not provide the data(^\\text{21}).

Gypsy and traveller sites

4.32 Since 1st April 2009 the LDD has been recording the loss and gain of gypsy and traveller pitches. During 2010/11 one permission was granted (in LB Bromley) changing a site from agricultural use to the extension of an existing traveller site, with six additional pitches. Three other permissions were granted (one in Bromley and two in Havering) extending the use of particular parcels of land as traveller sites for temporary periods pending the Government’s review of its guidance on Gypsy and Traveller pitches.

Conventional supply

4.33 As stated above, conventional housing supply comprises the bulk of

______________________________________________________________________

(^{19}) See table 615 here [http://is.gd/clgstocktables](http://is.gd/clgstocktables)

(^{20}) The two sources are not strictly comparable, as HSSA data covers private sector homes only while the council tax data covers all sectors, and because the HSSA data is reported as of April each year while council tax data is reported as of October.

(^{21}) Hounslow and Kensington and Chelsea – see [http://is.gd/hssa2011](http://is.gd/hssa2011) total housing provision in London. Net conventional housing supply in London since 2003/04 is shown in Table 4.6 below.

| Year | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |--------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | | 26,649 | 25,420 | 25,091 | 27,232 | 28,218 | 29,439 | 24,467 | 17,977 |

Source: London Development Database

4.34 Net conventional supply takes account of dwellings lost or replaced. In 2010/11 there was a gross conventional supply of 21,611 homes, with 3,634 lost or replaced (see Table HPM2). Areas where large-scale estate redevelopment is taking place can show high gross but low net supply: for example, Islington had a gross supply of 767 homes but 255 homes were lost or replaced, for a net supply of 512.

4.35 The table also compares net conventional supply in each borough with the conventional component of targets from both the 2008 London Plan and the new 2011 London Plan. Net conventional supply in 2010/11 was 60% of the new 2011 London Plan target (as compared to 65% of the slightly lower 2008 target).

4.36 There are three types of conventional housing supply recorded in the LDD: new build (including extensions), conversions (changes to the number of units in properties already in residential use) and changes of use (for example, from industrial or commercial uses). Table HPM3 shows gross and net conventional supply by type for each borough. Across London, new build accounted for 82% of net conventional supply in 2009/10, conversions 8% and changes of use 10%. The mix varied widely between boroughs, however. Nearly all of the supply in the City of London came from changes of use, while conversions accounted for high proportions of supply in Kensington and Chelsea, (33%), Ealing (26%) and Islington (24%).

4.37 The average density of new housing completions in London was 136 dwellings per hectare in 2010/11 (Table HPM14), similar to the level of the previous year but higher than previous years. Average densities varied widely at borough level, from 44 dwellings per hectare in Hillingdon to 389 in Tower Hamlets.

Affordable housing supply

4.38 Total net affordable housing supply in 2010/11 was 6,867, which was a fall in absolute terms from 2009/10 but a slightly higher proportion of total supply (38% compared to 37%). Table HPM5 shows total net conventional affordable supply by borough over the last three years, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total supply. Over the three-year period, the highest proportions of affordable housing supply were found in Havering (52%) Brent, Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham (51% each), and the lowest in the City of London (1%) and Islington (18%) 22

4.39 Table HPM4 breaks down net conventional affordable supply in the last three years into social rented

______________________________________________________________________

22 Islington records a negative share of affordable housing in 2010/11, indicating that fewer affordable were built than were demolished or replaced. The negative figure reflects the loss in 2010/11 of 154 units as part of a large, phased estate regeneration scheme the first phase of which was completed in 2007/08 so is not included in the three year figures. and intermediate supply. Over the three-year period net conventional affordable housing supply amounted to 26,714 homes, split almost evenly between social rented (51%) and intermediate (49%) housing. This split varied widely between boroughs, with social housing accounting for only 11% of affordable supply in Wandsworth but 94% in Kingston upon Thames and 85% in Islington. Map HPM3 shows affordable housing supply between 2008/09 and 2010/11 as a proportion of total net conventional supply in each borough.

Size mix of new supply

4.40 Table 4.7 below shows the split of total gross conventional supply across London as a whole by tenure and number of bedrooms (the figures are presented in gross terms as the number of bedrooms is not always readily available for homes lost or replaced). The profile of new social housing supply is quite different from that of intermediate or market supply: 38% of social housing supply comprises homes with three or more bedrooms, compared to 18% of market homes and 5% of intermediate homes. Across all tenures 20% of new supply had three bedrooms or more.

| dwellings | 1 bed | 2 beds | 3 beds | 4+ beds | Total | |-----------|-------|--------|--------|---------|-------| | Social | 1,199 | 1,673 | 1,203 | 522 | 4,597 | | Intermediate | 1,651 | 1,565 | 172 | 14 | 3,402 | | Market | 5,543 | 5,654 | 1,489 | 926 | 13,612| | Total | 8,393 | 8,892 | 2,864 | 1,462 | 21,611|

| as a % of total | 1 bed | 2 bed | 3 bed | 4+ bed | Total | |-----------------|-------|-------|-------|--------|-------| | Social | 26% | 36% | 26% | 11% | 100% | | Intermediate | 49% | 46% | 5% | 0% | 100% | | Market | 41% | 42% | 11% | 7% | 100% | | Total | 39% | 41% | 13% | 7% | 100% |

Source: London Development Database

4.41 Table HMP 6 shows the gross conventional supply of affordable housing (i.e. comprising both social rented and intermediate housing) by borough and number of bedrooms. The highest proportion of homes with three or more bedrooms was found in Kingston upon Thames and Haringey, but in both cases based on low overall totals. The three boroughs with the largest absolute supply of affordable homes with three bedrooms or more were Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth.

The pipeline of new homes

4.42 The ‘pipeline’ of anticipated future housing supply comprises homes which have been granted planning permission but not yet completed, and can be broken down into homes under construction and those for which construction has not yet started. It should be noted here that in the LDD a ‘start’ is strictly speaking the point at which a planning permission can no longer lapse, due to the borough acknowledging a legal start (such as demolition of existing homes), as opposed to the start of physical construction work on site. Thus, the data shows the capacity of schemes on which some work has started but should not be used to infer that work has begun on all the dwellings in those schemes.

4.43 The annual flow of planning approvals for new homes adds to the pipeline. Table 4.8 below shows the trend in net approvals at London level since 2000/01, while Table HPM7 breaks down 2010/11 net approvals by tenure and Table HPM8 by type.

| Year | 2003/04 | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |----------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | 2003/04 | 43,516 | 55,466 | 52,994 | 57,832 | 80,213 | 47,245 | 43,824 | 46,545 |

Source: London Development Database

4.44 At London level 25% of net approvals in 2010/11 were for affordable housing, of which 15% were social rented and 10% intermediate. It should be noted that the tenure of approved units can change before completion (for example as the result of negotiations between developers and planning authorities), and some approvals may ultimately not be built out.

4.45 The average density of new housing approvals was 140 dwellings per hectare (Table HPM13), similar to the density of completions. In contrast to the completions trend, the average density in 2010/11 was slightly below that of 2009/10. As with completions, average density of approvals in 2010/11 varied widely by borough – from 52 in Harrow and Barking and Dagenham, to 398 in Newham and 457 in the City of London.

4.46 Table HPM9 shows net conventional housing ‘starts’ by tenure and Table HPM10 by type. 31% of net starts in 2009/10 were affordable housing, compared to 25% of approvals and 38% of completions. New build comprised 91% of both approvals and starts in 2010/11.

4.47 Finally, Table HPM11 and Map HMP4 show the planning pipeline as of 31 March 2011, comprising units approved but not started and those under construction. The net housing pipeline contained approximately 80,000 homes not started and 90,000 under construction, for a total pipeline of 170,000 homes. At borough level, the pipeline was largest in a handful of ‘Thames Gateway’ boroughs: Greenwich had the largest total (23,083), followed by Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham and Newham. Just three boroughs (Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Barking and Dagenham) accounted for one third of the London total. At the other end of the scale, three boroughs (the City of London, Kingston upon Thames and Sutton) accounted for a total pipeline of just 3,000 homes between them.

Housing provision tables follow, starting on the next page (and including four maps). | Area | HSSA data | Council Tax data | |-------------------------------------------|-----------|-----------------| | | 2010 | 2011 | decrease | 2010 | 2011 | decrease | | Barking and Dagenham | 822 | 816 | 6 | 557 | 468 | 89 | | Barnet | 1,618 | 1,676 | -58 | 1,525 | 1,390 | 135 | | Bexley | 685 | 752 | -67 | 670 | 779 | -109 | | Brent | 1,195 | 1,095 | 100 | 595 | 629 | -34 | | Bromley | 359 | 629 | -270 | 922 | 840 | 82 | | Camden | 562 | 639 | -77 | 1,163| 1,053| 110 | | City of London | 21 | 21 | 0 | 23 | 45 | -22 | | Croydon | 1,985 | 1,639 | 346 | 1,476| 1,321| 155 | | Ealing | 1,346 | 1,184 | 162 | 938 | 656 | 282 | | Enfield | 1,139 | 1,344 | -205 | 1,015| 1,057| -42 | | Greenwich | 1,203 | 1,201 | 2 | 1,341| 1,620| -279 | | Hackney | 664 | 606 | 58 | 2,111| 2,023| 88 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 595 | 677 | -82 | 871 | 757 | 114 | | Haringey | 1,286 | 956 | 330 | 742 | 649 | 93 | | Harrow | 498 | 489 | 9 | 251 | 210 | 41 | | Havering | 696 | 718 | -22 | 1,123| 996 | 127 | | Hillingdon | 575 | 1,191| -616 | 809 | 693 | 116 | | Hounslow | 468 | 468 | 0 | 508 | 19 | 489 | | Islington | 313 | 497 | -184 | 1,077| 944 | 133 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,182 | 1,182| 0 | 1,104| 1,107| -3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 151 | 643 | -492 | 1,125| 797 | 328 | | Lambeth | 1,803 | 1,450 | 353 | 2,226| 1,676| 550 | | Lewisham | 369 | 663 | -294 | 942 | 940 | 2 | | Merton | 692 | 1,003| -311 | 527 | 538 | -11 | | Newham | 738 | 334 | 404 | 1,445| 1,252| 193 | | Redbridge | 951 | 961 | -10 | 813 | 693 | 120 | | Richmond upon Thames | 401 | 379 | 22 | 335 | 387 | -52 | | Southwark | 891 | 1,719| -828 | 1,628| 1,157| 471 | | Sutton | 538 | 552 | -14 | 1,006| 817 | 189 | | Tower Hamlets | 3,700 | 1,286 | 2,414 | 1,623| 939 | 684 | | Waltham Forest | 1,321 | 1,306 | 15 | 775 | 670 | 105 | | Wandsworth | 724 | 190 | 534 | 657 | 549 | 108 | | Westminster | 2,154 | 1,971| 183 | 2,499| 1,869| 630 | | London | 31,645| 30,237| 1,408 | 34,422| 29,540| 4,882 |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | gross conventional | existing homes replaced | net conventional supply | 2008 London Plan | 2011 London Plan | |------------------------------|--------------------|------------------------|------------------------|------------------|------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 361 | 22 | 339 | 28% | 33% | | Barnet | 761 | 82 | 679 | 36% | 33% | | Bexley | 202 | 34 | 168 | 50% | 50% | | Brent | 680 | 287 | 393 | 43% | 40% | | Bromley | 871 | 199 | 672 | 140% | 134% | | Camden | 705 | 167 | 538 | 123% | 108% | | City of London | 109 | 11 | 98 | 115% | 121% | | Croydon | 1,286 | 164 | 1,122 | 124% | 92% | | Ealing | 334 | 70 | 264 | 32% | 31% | | Enfield | 628 | 173 | 455 | 124% | 86% | | Greenwich | 1,306 | 124 | 1,182 | 62% | 49% | | Hackney | 512 | 121 | 391 | 42% | 35% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 508 | 51 | 457 | 116% | 81% | | Haringey | 375 | 53 | 322 | 54% | 41% | | Harrow | 577 | 137 | 440 | 122% | 126% | | Havering | 79 | 10 | 69 | 14% | 7% | | Hillingdon | 345 | 42 | 303 | 96% | 81% | | Hounslow | 866 | 199 | 667 | 154% | 147% | | Islington | 767 | 255 | 512 | 52% | 56% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 240 | 72 | 168 | 71% | 32% | | Kingston upon Thames | 178 | 42 | 136 | 39% | 41% | | Lambeth | 1,442 | 100 | 1,342 | 129% | 118% | | Lewisham | 824 | 96 | 728 | 85% | 67% | | Merton | 422 | 66 | 356 | 101% | 112% | | Newham | 870 | 83 | 787 | 23% | 31% | | Redbridge | 372 | 22 | 350 | 39% | 47% | | Richmond upon Thames | 401 | 81 | 320 | 120% | 152% | | Southwark | 1,596 | 152 | 1,444 | 131% | 77% | | Sutton | 367 | 40 | 327 | 95% | 155% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,416 | 120 | 1,296 | 43% | 53% | | Waltham Forest | 491 | 66 | 425 | 78% | 62% | | Wandsworth | 670 | 189 | 481 | 70% | 44% | | Westminster | 1,050 | 304 | 746 | 133% | 126% | | London | 21,611 | 3,634 | 17,977 | 65% | 60% |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | new build | conversions | change of use | total | |------------------------------|-----------|-------------|---------------|-------| | | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | | Barking and Dagenham | 326 | 5 | 321 | 26 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 4 | | Barnet | 617 | 36 | 581 | 117 | 46 | 71 | 27 | 0 | 27 | | Bexley | 165 | 20 | 145 | 27 | 11 | 16 | 10 | 3 | 7 | | Brent | 578 | 241 | 337 | 62 | 43 | 19 | 40 | 3 | 37 | | Bromley | 689 | 100 | 589 | 127 | 92 | 35 | 55 | 7 | 48 | | Camden | 406 | 19 | 387 | 189 | 133 | 56 | 110 | 15 | 95 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 100 | 7 | 93 | | Croydon | 781 | 29 | 752 | 320 | 125 | 195 | 185 | 10 | 175 | | Ealing | 164 | 7 | 157 | 125 | 56 | 69 | 45 | 7 | 38 | | Enfield | 440 | 30 | 410 | 153 | 64 | 89 | 35 | 79 | -44 | | Greenwich | 1,080 | 8 | 1,072 | 57 | 106 | -49 | 169 | 10 | 159 | | Hackney | 296 | 35 | 261 | 144 | 72 | 72 | 72 | 14 | 58 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 354 | 4 | 350 | 95 | 47 | 48 | 59 | 0 | 59 | | Haringey | 246 | 5 | 241 | 104 | 48 | 56 | 25 | 0 | 25 | | Harrow | 466 | 95 | 371 | 93 | 37 | 56 | 18 | 5 | 13 | | Havering | 64 | 4 | 60 | 14 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 3 | -2 | | Hillingdon | 282 | 19 | 263 | 44 | 18 | 26 | 19 | 5 | 14 | | Hounslow | 812 | 183 | 629 | 29 | 12 | 17 | 25 | 4 | 21 | | Islington | 297 | 172 | 125 | 197 | 75 | 122 | 273 | 8 | 265 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 69 | 25 | 44 | 91 | 35 | 56 | 80 | 12 | 68 | | Kingston upon Thames | 148 | 30 | 118 | 21 | 12 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 9 |

Table HPM3: Conventional completions by type, 2010/11 | | 1,238 | 4 | 1,234 | 181 | 91 | 90 | 23 | 5 | 18 | 1,442 | 100 | 1,342 | |----------------|-------|-----|-------|------|------|------|------|------|------|-------|------|-------| | Lambeth | 1,238 | 4 | 1,234 | 181 | 91 | 90 | 23 | 5 | 18 | 1,442 | 100 | 1,342 | | Lewisham | 586 | 25 | 561 | 170 | 68 | 102 | 68 | 3 | 65 | 824 | 96 | 728 | | Merton | 339 | 27 | 312 | 64 | 36 | 28 | 19 | 3 | 16 | 422 | 66 | 356 | | Newham | 706 | 24 | 682 | 86 | 51 | 35 | 78 | 8 | 70 | 870 | 83 | 787 | | Redbridge | 325 | 12 | 313 | 25 | 8 | 17 | 22 | 2 | 20 | 372 | 22 | 350 | | Richmond upon Thames | 291 | 27 | 264 | 68 | 52 | 16 | 42 | 2 | 40 | 401 | 81 | 320 | | Southwark | 1,423 | 4 | 1,419 | 93 | 39 | 54 | 80 | 109 | -29 | 1,596 | 152 | 1,444 | | Sutton | 302 | 26 | 276 | 44 | 13 | 31 | 21 | 1 | 20 | 367 | 40 | 327 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,352 | 100 | 1,252 | 29 | 12 | 17 | 35 | 8 | 27 | 1,416 | 120 | 1,296 | | Waltham Forest | 334 | 11 | 323 | 110 | 53 | 57 | 47 | 2 | 45 | 491 | 66 | 425 | | Wandsworth | 355 | 10 | 345 | 213 | 176 | 37 | 102 | 3 | 99 | 670 | 189 | 481 | | Westminster | 603 | 90 | 513 | 157 | 142 | 15 | 290 | 72 | 218 | 1,050 | 304 | 746 | | London | 16,134| 1,427| 14,707| 3,284| 1,792| 1,492| 2,193| 415 | 1,778| 21,611| 3,634| 17,97 |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | 2008/09 to 2010/11 | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------------------| | | social | inter- | total | social | inter- | total | social | inter- | total | social | inter- | total | | | rented | medium | | rented | medium | | rented | medium | | rented | medium | | | Barking and Dagenham | 56 | 101 | 157 | -2 | 26 | 24 | 60 | 83 | 143 | 114 | 210 | 324 | | Barnet | 237 | 77 | 314 | 113 | 23 | 136 | 202 | 22 | 224 | 552 | 122 | 674 | | Bexley | 51 | 0 | 51 | 160 | 79 | 239 | 31 | 29 | 60 | 242 | 108 | 350 | | Brent | 292 | 297 | 589 | 241 | 173 | 414 | -31 | 215 | 184 | 502 | 685 | 1,187 | | Bromley | 125 | 52 | 177 | 121 | 103 | 224 | 151 | 47 | 198 | 397 | 202 | 599 | | Camden | 148 | 254 | 402 | 111 | 105 | 216 | 110 | 32 | 142 | 369 | 391 | 760 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | | Croydon | 278 | 138 | 416 | 394 | 314 | 708 | 257 | 128 | 385 | 929 | 580 | 1,509 | | Ealing | 91 | 218 | 309 | 90 | 139 | 229 | 48 | 25 | 73 | 229 | 382 | 611 | | Enfield | 63 | 10 | 73 | 24 | 6 | 30 | 85 | 135 | 220 | 172 | 151 | 323 | | Greenwich | 52 | 187 | 239 | -15 | 156 | 141 | 432 | 343 | 775 | 469 | 686 | 1,155 | | Hackney | 423 | 492 | 915 | 334 | 277 | 611 | 106 | 115 | 221 | 863 | 884 | 1,747 | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 197 | 115 | 312 | 148 | 293 | 441 | 17 | 133 | 150 | 362 | 541 | 903 | | Haringey | 97 | 196 | 293 | 154 | 127 | 281 | 25 | 24 | 49 | 276 | 347 | 623 | | Harrow | 76 | 152 | 228 | 129 | 80 | 209 | 108 | 59 | 167 | 313 | 291 | 604 | | Havering | 109 | 192 | 301 | 34 | 254 | 288 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 143 | 446 | 589 | | Hillingdon | 133 | 44 | 177 | 127 | 62 | 189 | 145 | 30 | 175 | 405 | 136 | 541 | | Hounslow | 171 | 161 | 332 | 215 | 166 | 381 | 63 | 286 | 349 | 449 | 613 | 1,062 | | Islington | 275 | 55 | 330 | 410 | 62 | 472 | -43 | 0 | -43 | 642 | 117 | 759 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 68 | 28 | 96 | 18 | 4 | 22 | 49 | 12 | 61 | 135 | 44 | 179 | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 59 | 6 | 65 | 89 | 6 | 95 | | | 341 | 244 | 585 | 265 | 152 | 417 | 423 | 321 | 744 | 1,029 | 717 | 1,746 | |----------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|--------|-----|--------| | Lambeth | 66 | 139 | 205 | 87 | 81 | 168 | 239 | 100 | 339 | 392 | 320 | 712 | | Lewisham | 200 | 65 | 265 | 30 | 19 | 49 | 20 | 28 | 48 | 250 | 112 | 362 | | Merton | 188 | 402 | 590 | 227 | 485 | 712 | 119 | 251 | 370 | 534 | 1,138| 1,672 | | Newham | 79 | 18 | 97 | 91 | 84 | 175 | 73 | 38 | 111 | 243 | 140 | 383 | | Redbridge | 87 | 48 | 135 | 65 | 11 | 76 | 37 | 8 | 45 | 189 | 67 | 256 | | Richmond upon Thames | 159 | 140 | 299 | 416 | 284 | 700 | 169 | 418 | 587 | 744 | 842 | 1,586 | | Southwark | 146 | 97 | 243 | -35 | 20 | -15 | 148 | 74 | 222 | 259 | 191 | 450 | | Sutton | 738 | 963 | 1,701| 421| 286 | 707 | 168 | 124 | 292 | 1,327 | 1,373| 2,700 | | Tower Hamlets | 263 | 32 | 295 | -139| 9 | -130| 78 | 170 | 248 | 202 | 211 | 413 | | Waltham Forest | 88 | 394 | 482 | 25 | 454 | 479 | 6 | 103 | 109 | 119 | 951 | 1,070 | | Wandsworth | 139 | 92 | 231 | 312 | 73 | 385 | 109 | 43 | 152 | 560 | 208 | 768 | | Westminster | 5,436| 5,403| 10,839| 4,601| 4,407| 9,008| 3,465| 3,402| 6,867| 13,502 | 13,212| 26,714 |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | total | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | total | |------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 157 | 24 | 143 | 324 | 40% | 12% | 42% | 35% | | Barnet | 314 | 136 | 224 | 674 | 28% | 19% | 33% | 27% | | Bexley | 51 | 239 | 60 | 350 | 22% | 68% | 36% | 47% | | Brent | 589 | 414 | 184 | 1,187 | 52% | 51% | 47% | 51% | | Bromley | 177 | 224 | 198 | 599 | 35% | 40% | 29% | 35% | | Camden | 402 | 216 | 142 | 760 | 45% | 51% | 26% | 41% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0% | 0% | 2% | 1% | | Croydon | 416 | 708 | 385 | 1,509 | 27% | 51% | 34% | 37% | | Ealing | 309 | 229 | 73 | 611 | 37% | 53% | 28% | 40% | | Enfield | 73 | 30 | 220 | 323 | 20% | 11% | 48% | 29% | | Greenwich | 239 | 141 | 775 | 1,155 | 31% | 26% | 66% | 46% | | Hackney | 915 | 611 | 221 | 1,747 | 44% | 37% | 57% | 43% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 312 | 441 | 150 | 903 | 69% | 50% | 33% | 51% | | Haringey | 293 | 281 | 49 | 623 | 37% | 51% | 15% | 38% | | Harrow | 228 | 209 | 167 | 604 | 30% | 40% | 38% | 35% | | Havering | 301 | 288 | 0 | 589 | 48% | 67% | 0% | 52% | | Hillingdon | 177 | 189 | 175 | 541 | 21% | 31% | 58% | 31% | | Hounslow | 332 | 381 | 349 | 1,062 | 42% | 59% | 52% | 51% | | Islington | 330 | 472 | -43 | 759 | 15% | 32% | -8% | 18% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 96 | 22 | 61 | 179 | 38% | 7% | 36% | 24% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 30 | 65 | 95 | 0% | 21% | 48% | 19% | | Borough | Total | New | Existing | New/Existing | New/Total | Existing/Total | New/Existing | New/Total | Existing/Total | |-------------------------|-------|-----|----------|--------------|-----------|----------------|--------------|-----------|----------------| | Lambeth | 585 | 417 | 744 | 1,746 | 51% | 36% | 55% | 48% | 48% | | Lewisham | 205 | 168 | 339 | 712 | 23% | 22% | 47% | 30% | 30% | | Merton | 265 | 49 | 48 | 362 | 34% | 15% | 13% | 25% | 25% | | Newham | 590 | 712 | 370 | 1,672 | 49% | 48% | 47% | 48% | 48% | | Redbridge | 97 | 175 | 111 | 383 | 15% | 18% | 32% | 20% | 20% | | Richmond upon Thames | 135 | 76 | 45 | 256 | 38% | 37% | 14% | 29% | 29% | | Southwark | 299 | 700 | 587 | 1,586 | 29% | 52% | 41% | 42% | 42% | | Sutton | 243 | -15 | 222 | 450 | 52% | -7% | 68% | 45% | 45% | | Tower Hamlets | 1,701 | 707 | 292 | 2,700 | 56% | 27% | 23% | 39% | 39% | | Waltham Forest | 295 | -130| 248 | 413 | 40% | -88% | 58% | 31% | 31% | | Wandsworth | 482 | 479 | 109 | 1,070 | 31% | 31% | 23% | 30% | 30% | | Westminster | 231 | 385 | 152 | 768 | 32% | 56% | 20% | 36% | 36% | | London | 10,839| 9,008| 6,867 | 26,714 | 37% | 37% | 38% | 37% | 37% |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | number of bedrooms | total | % 3+ | |------------------------------|--------------------|-------|------| | Barking and Dagenham | 64 27 17 36 | 144 | 37% | | Barnet | 63 58 87 16 | 224 | 46% | | Bexley | 26 29 5 0 | 60 | 8% | | Brent | 148 155 97 12 | 412 | 26% | | Bromley | 119 59 48 12 | 238 | 25% | | Camden | 48 54 27 13 | 142 | 28% | | City | 2 0 0 0 | 2 | 0% | | Croydon | 105 177 103 9 | 394 | 28% | | Ealing | 21 36 16 0 | 73 | 22% | | Enfield | 61 120 44 14 | 239 | 24% | | Greenwich | 339 263 171 82 | 855 | 30% | | Hackney | 50 101 42 59 | 252 | 40% | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 116 27 5 2 | 150 | 5% | | Haringey | 9 16 10 14 | 49 | 49% | | Harrow | 108 47 31 57 | 243 | 36% | | Havering | 0 0 0 0 | 0 | 0% | | Hillingdon | 49 79 45 2 | 175 | 27% | | Hounslow | 129 276 76 24 | 505 | 20% | | Islington | 20 51 21 19 | 111 | 36% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 46 0 12 3 | 61 | 25% | | Kingston upon Thames | 6 18 11 30 | 65 | 63% | | Lambeth | 245 375 110 24 | 754 | 18% | | Lewisham | 131 188 40 0 | 359 | 11% | | Merton | 12 28 8 0 | 48 | 17% | | Newham | 141 205 37 16 | 399 | 13% | | Redbridge | 39 62 13 0 | 114 | 11% | | Richmond upon Thames | 39 19 0 0 | 58 | 0% | | Southwark | 290 316 81 5 | 692 | 12% | | Sutton | 57 128 44 7 | 236 | 22% | | Tower Hamlets | 116 108 95 70 | 389 | 42% | | Waltham Forest | 102 122 26 6 | 256 | 13% | | Wandsworth | 81 50 10 2 | 143 | 8% | | Westminster | 68 44 43 2 | 157 | 29% | | London | 2,850 3,238 1,375 536 | 7,999 | 24% |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | existing | proposed | net | affordable % | social % | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|--------------|----------| | | social | inter- | social | inter- | market | social | inter- | market | total | afford- | social | | | rented | medium | rented | medium | market | rented | medium | market | | able % | | | Barking and Dagenham | 1 | 0 | 14 | 65 | 46 | 64 | 0 | 32 | 96 | 67% | 67% | | Barnet | 7 | 0 | 195 | 431 | 139 | 1,519 | 424 | 139 | 1,324 | 1,887 | 30% | 22% | | Bexley | 1 | 0 | 18 | 49 | 19 | 245 | 48 | 19 | 227 | 294 | 23% | 16% | | Brent | 110 | 0 | 130 | 474 | 151 | 1,452 | 364 | 151 | 1,322 | 1,837 | 28% | 20% | | Bromley | 9 | 0 | 124 | 197 | 34 | 1,213 | 188 | 34 | 1,089 | 1,311 | 17% | 14% | | Camden | 51 | 0 | 352 | 236 | 55 | 919 | 185 | 55 | 567 | 807 | 30% | 23% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 95 | 0 | 0 | 91 | 91 | 0% | 0% | | Croydon | 0 | 0 | 175 | 186 | 184 | 2,142 | 186 | 184 | 1,967 | 2,337 | 16% | 8% | | Ealing | 511 | 0 | 229 | 1,034 | 690 | 3,586 | 523 | 690 | 3,357 | 4,570 | 27% | 11% | | Enfield | 0 | 0 | 164 | 65 | 35 | 373 | 65 | 35 | 209 | 309 | 32% | 21% | | Greenwich | 1 | 0 | 41 | 215 | 43 | 3,712 | 214 | 43 | 3,671 | 3,928 | 7% | 5% | | Hackney | 57 | 0 | 219 | 295 | 109 | 1,025 | 238 | 109 | 806 | 1,153 | 30% | 21% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 19 | 0 | 76 | 29 | 42 | 497 | 10 | 42 | 421 | 473 | 11% | 2% | | Haringey | 1 | 0 | 116 | 51 | 28 | 685 | 50 | 28 | 569 | 647 | 12% | 8% | | Harrow | 140 | 0 | 134 | 223 | 78 | 949 | 83 | 78 | 815 | 976 | 16% | 9% | | Havering | 45 | 0 | 58 | 448 | 182 | 1,208 | 403 | 182 | 1,150 | 1,735 | 34% | 23% | | Hillingdon | 2 | 0 | 58 | 172 | 72 | 1,165 | 170 | 72 | 1,107 | 1,349 | 18% | 13% | | Hounslow | 34 | 0 | 41 | 158 | 23 | 311 | 124 | 23 | 270 | 417 | 35% | 30% | | Islington | 0 | 0 | 114 | 426 | 298 | 1,510 | 426 | 298 | 1,396 | 2,120 | 34% | 20% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 239 | 31 | 32 | 958 | 31 | 32 | 719 | 782 | 8% | 4% | | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 62 | 47 | 17 | 366 | 47 | 17 | 304 | 368 | 17% | 13% | | Lambeth | 328 | 0 | 230 | 722 | 214 | 1,548 | 394 | 214 | 1,318 | 1,926 | 32% | 20% | | | 35 | 0 | 82 | 248 | 170 | 907 | 213 | 170 | 825 | 1,208 | 32% | 18% | |----------------|----|----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-----|-----| | Lewisham | 0 | 0 | 111 | 85 | 88 | 531 | 85 | 88 | 420 | 593 | 29% | 14% | | Merton | 113| 0 | 69 | 308 | 273 | 1,862| 195 | 273 | 1,793| 2,261 | 21% | 9% | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 23 | 130 | 20 | 460 | 130 | 20 | 437 | 587 | 26% | 22% | | Redbridge | 4 | 0 | 86 | 163 | 82 | 489 | 159 | 82 | 403 | 644 | 37% | 25% | | Richmond upon Thames | 77 | 0 | 113 | 694 | 329 | 2,268| 617 | 329 | 2,155| 3,101 | 31% | 20% | | Southwark | 22 | 0 | 38 | 95 | 12 | 455 | 73 | 12 | 417 | 502 | 17% | 15% | | Sutton | 113| 0 | 122 | 906 | 366 | 2,559| 793 | 366 | 2,437| 3,596 | 32% | 22% | | Tower Hamlets | 108| 0 | 48 | 410 | 168 | 372 | 302 | 168 | 324 | 794 | 59% | 38% | | Waltham Forest | 3 | 0 | 215 | 180 | 446 | 2,521| 177 | 446 | 2,306| 2,929 | 21% | 6% | | Wandsworth | 48 | 0 | 298 | 137 | 70 | 1,037| 89 | 70 | 739 | 898 | 18% | 10% | | Westminster | 1,840| 0 | 3,998| 8,910| 4,469| 38,985| 7,070| 4,469| 34,987| 46,526| 25% | 15% |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | new build | conversions | change of use | total | |------------------------------|-----------|-------------|---------------|-------| | | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | | Barking and Dagenham | 79 | 1 | 78 | 19 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 111 | 15 | 96 | | Barnet | 1,806 | 90 | 1,716 | 242 | 105 | 137 | 41 | 7 | 34 | 2,089 | 202 | 1,887 | | Bexley | 255 | 6 | 249 | 14 | 8 | 6 | 44 | 5 | 39 | 313 | 19 | 294 | | Brent | 1,965 | 170 | 1,795 | 76 | 63 | 13 | 36 | 7 | 29 | 2,077 | 240 | 1,837 | | Bromley | 1,271 | 84 | 1,187 | 99 | 43 | 56 | 74 | 6 | 68 | 1,444 | 133 | 1,311 | | Camden | 699 | 132 | 567 | 247 | 249 | -2 | 264 | 22 | 242 | 1,210 | 403 | 807 | | City of London | 9 | 0 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 77 | 0 | 77 | 95 | 4 | 91 | | Croydon | 2,088 | 52 | 2,036 | 291 | 108 | 183 | 133 | 15 | 118 | 2,512 | 175 | 2,337 | | Ealing | 5,043 | 630 | 4,413 | 166 | 99 | 67 | 94 | 10 | 84 | 5,303 | 739 | 4,564 | | Enfield | 312 | 26 | 286 | 108 | 48 | 60 | 53 | 90 | -37 | 473 | 164 | 309 | | Greenwich | 3,895 | 19 | 3,876 | 37 | 14 | 23 | 38 | 9 | 29 | 3,970 | 42 | 3,928 | | Hackney | 1,064 | 160 | 904 | 210 | 107 | 103 | 155 | 9 | 146 | 1,429 | 276 | 1,153 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 259 | 4 | 255 | 185 | 89 | 96 | 124 | 2 | 122 | 568 | 95 | 473 | | Haringey | 410 | 21 | 389 | 168 | 92 | 76 | 186 | 4 | 182 | 764 | 117 | 647 | | Harrow | 1,051 | 217 | 834 | 122 | 50 | 72 | 77 | 8 | 69 | 1,250 | 275 | 975 | | Havering | 1,782 | 82 | 1,700 | 46 | 17 | 29 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 1,838 | 103 | 1,735 | | Hillingdon | 1,354 | 39 | 1,315 | 45 | 16 | 29 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 1,409 | 60 | 1,349 | | Hounslow | 426 | 46 | 380 | 40 | 28 | 12 | 26 | 1 | 25 | 492 | 75 | 417 | | Islington | 1,826 | 3 | 1,823 | 232 | 104 | 128 | 176 | 7 | 169 | 2,234 | 114 | 2,120 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 804 | 46 | 758 | 128 | 185 | -57 | 89 | 8 | 81 | 1,021 | 239 | 782 | | Kingston upon Thames | 307 | 25 | 282 | 53 | 37 | 16 | 70 | 0 | 70 | 430 | 62 | 368 | | Lambeth | 2,108 | 405 | 1,703 | 305 | 143 | 162 | 71 | 10 | 61 | 2,484 | 558 | 1,926 | | | Lewisham | Merton | Newham | Redbridge | Richmond upon Thames | Southwark | Sutton | Tower Hamlets | Waltham Forest | Wandsworth | Westminster | London | |----------------|----------|--------|--------|-----------|---------------------|-----------|--------|---------------|----------------|------------|-------------|--------| | | 966 | 531 | 2,270 | 555 | 598 | 3,082 | 470 | 3,672 | 813 | 2,790 | 627 | 45,187 | | | 8 | 41 | 85 | 5 | 16 | 124 | 26 | 163 | 114 | 60 | 164 | 3,064 | | | 958 | 490 | 2,185 | 550 | 582 | 2,958 | 444 | 3,509 | 699 | 2,730 | 164 | 42,123 | | | 208 | 78 | 79 | 37 | 78 | 128 | 46 | 88 | 71 | 174 | 145 | 3,974 | | | 100 | 53 | 51 | 16 | 67 | 57 | 21 | 45 | 42 | 152 | 144 | 2,366 | | | 108 | 25 | 28 | 21 | 11 | 71 | 25 | 43 | 29 | 22 | 1 | 1,608 | | | 151 | 95 | 94 | 18 | 58 | 81 | 46 | 71 | 66 | 183 | 472 | 3,196 | | | 9 | 17 | 46 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 13 | 27 | 0 | 6 | 38 | 408 | | | 142 | 78 | 48 | 16 | 51 | 72 | 33 | 44 | 66 | 177 | 434 | 2,788 | | | 1,325 | 704 | 2,443 | 610 | 734 | 3,291 | 562 | 3,831 | 950 | 3,147 | 1,244 | 52,357 | | | 117 | 111 | 182 | 23 | 90 | 190 | 60 | 235 | 156 | 218 | 346 | 5,838 | | | 1,208 | 593 | 2,261 | 587 | 644 | 3,101 | 502 | 3,596 | 794 | 2,929 | 898 | 46,519 |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | existing | proposed | net | afford-able % | |------------------------------|----------|----------|-----|---------------| | | social | inter- | social | inter- | social | inter- | social | inter- | social | total | % | | | rented | mediate | rented | mediate | rented | mediate | rented | mediate | rented | | | | Barking and Dagenham | 235 | 0 | 39 | 2,303 | 2,316 | 6,614 | 2,068 | 2,316 | 6,575 | 10,959| 40% | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 27 | 126 | 54 | 495 | 126 | 54 | 468 | 648 | 28% | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 20 | 122 | 45 | 447 | 122 | 45 | 427 | 594 | 28% | | Brent | 133 | 0 | 58 | 424 | 223 | 307 | 291 | 223 | 249 | 763 | 67% | | Bromley | 227 | 0 | 88 | 233 | 14 | 673 | 6 | 14 | 585 | 605 | 3% | | Camden | 70 | 0 | 215 | 151 | 53 | 510 | 81 | 53 | 295 | 429 | 31% | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 5 | 23 | 0 | 102 | 23 | 0 | 97 | 120 | 19% | | Croydon | 20 | 0 | 93 | 191 | 106 | 1,236 | 171 | 106 | 1,143 | 1,420 | 20% | | Ealing | 48 | 0 | 98 | 336 | 268 | 1,000 | 288 | 268 | 902 | 1,458 | 38% | | Enfield | 0 | 143 | 147 | 188 | 201 | 460 | 188 | 58 | 313 | 559 | 44% | | Greenwich | 1 | 0 | 34 | 287 | 109 | 3,719 | 286 | 109 | 3,685 | 4,080 | 10% | | Hackney | 126 | 0 | 201 | 395 | 129 | 516 | 269 | 129 | 315 | 713 | 56% | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 0 | 0 | 58 | 0 | 195 | 493 | 0 | 195 | 435 | 630 | 31% | | Haringey | 1 | 0 | 63 | 86 | 135 | 396 | 85 | 135 | 333 | 553 | 40% | | Harrow | 140 | 0 | 73 | 133 | 31 | 431 | -7 | 31 | 358 | 382 | 6% | | Havering | 0 | 0 | 15 | 60 | 7 | 123 | 60 | 7 | 108 | 175 | 38% | | Hillingdon | 1 | 0 | 33 | 88 | 49 | 369 | 87 | 49 | 336 | 472 | 29% | | Hounslow | 88 | 0 | 38 | 261 | 138 | 586 | 173 | 138 | 548 | 859 | 36% | | Islington | 134 | 0 | 105 | 445 | 323 | 1,451 | 311 | 323 | 1,346 | 1,980 | 32% | | Kensington and Chelsea | 4 | 0 | 133 | 51 | 32 | 834 | 47 | 32 | 701 | 780 | 10% | | Area | 0 | 1 | 31 | 32 | 9 | 98 | 32 | 8 | 67 | 107 | 37% | |-----------------------------|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|-----|-----| | Kingston upon Thames | 0 | 1 | 31 | 32 | 9 | 98 | 32 | 8 | 67 | 107 | 37% | | Lambeth | 44 | 0 | 77 | 232| 190| 671| 188| 190| 594| 972 | 39% | | Lewisham | 45 | 0 | 94 | 482| 223| 1,516| 437| 223| 1,422| 2,082| 32% | | Merton | 0 | 20 | 75 | 69 | 98 | 470 | 69 | 78 | 395 | 542 | 27% | | Newham | 243| 0 | 43 | 361| 295| 1,382| 118| 295| 1,339| 1,752| 24% | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 19 | 3 | 0 | 100 | 3 | 0 | 81 | 84 | 4% | | Richmond upon Thames | 4 | 0 | 66 | 133| 75 | 323 | 129| 75 | 257 | 461 | 44% | | Southwark | 148| 2 | 58 | 740| 290| 1,838| 592| 288| 1,780| 2,660| 33% | | Sutton | 20 | 0 | 20 | 152| 11 | 506 | 132| 11 | 486 | 629 | 23% | | Tower Hamlets | 23 | 0 | 52 | 453| 162| 1,320| 430| 162| 1,268| 1,860| 32% | | Waltham Forest | 115| 0 | 42 | 309| 54 | 245 | 194| 54 | 203 | 451 | 55% | | Wandsworth | 3 | 0 | 156| 190| 210| 1,138| 187| 210| 982 | 1,379| 29% | | Westminster | 39 | 0 | 256| 96 | 19 | 771 | 57 | 19 | 515 | 591 | 13% | | London | 1,912| 166| 2,532| 9,155| 6,064| 31,140| 7,243| 5,898| 28,608| 41,749| 31% |

Source: London Development Database | borough name | new build | conversions | change of use | total | |------------------------------|-----------|-------------|---------------|-------| | | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | | Barking and Dagenham | 11,197 | 257 | 10,940 | 22 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 6 | 8 | 11,233 | 274 | 10,959 | | Barnet | 647 | 15 | 632 | 28 | 12 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 675 | 27 | 648 | | Bexley | 556 | 9 | 547 | 20 | 8 | 12 | 38 | 3 | 35 | 614 | 20 | 594 | | Brent | 879 | 167 | 712 | 31 | 22 | 9 | 44 | 2 | 42 | 954 | 191 | 763 | | Bromley | 751 | 259 | 492 | 95 | 52 | 43 | 74 | 4 | 70 | 920 | 315 | 605 | | Camden | 398 | 136 | 262 | 167 | 144 | 23 | 149 | 5 | 144 | 714 | 285 | 429 | | City of London | 77 | 0 | 77 | 18 | 4 | 14 | 30 | 1 | 29 | 125 | 5 | 120 | | Croydon | 1,281 | 37 | 1,244 | 181 | 67 | 114 | 71 | 9 | 62 | 1,533 | 113 | 1,420 | | Ealing | 1,365 | 63 | 1,302 | 135 | 75 | 60 | 104 | 8 | 96 | 1,604 | 146 | 1,458 | | Enfield | 621 | 157 | 464 | 101 | 46 | 55 | 127 | 87 | 40 | 849 | 290 | 559 | | Greenwich | 4,027 | 7 | 4,020 | 54 | 20 | 34 | 34 | 8 | 26 | 4,115 | 35 | 4,080 | | Hackney | 763 | 214 | 549 | 187 | 91 | 96 | 90 | 22 | 68 | 1,040 | 327 | 713 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 525 | 2 | 523 | 103 | 54 | 49 | 60 | 2 | 58 | 688 | 58 | 630 | | Haringey | 465 | 11 | 454 | 113 | 53 | 60 | 39 | 0 | 39 | 617 | 64 | 553 | | Harrow | 473 | 175 | 298 | 83 | 33 | 50 | 39 | 5 | 34 | 595 | 213 | 382 | | Havering | 173 | 7 | 166 | 15 | 4 | 11 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 190 | 15 | 175 | | Hillingdon | 466 | 25 | 441 | 20 | 6 | 14 | 20 | 3 | 17 | 506 | 34 | 472 | | Hounslow | 890 | 83 | 807 | 50 | 40 | 10 | 45 | 3 | 42 | 985 | 126 | 859 | | Islington | 1,707 | 135 | 1,572 | 232 | 91 | 141 | 280 | 13 | 267 | 2,219 | 239 | 1,980 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 727 | 35 | 692 | 83 | 93 | -10 | 107 | 9 | 98 | 917 | 137 | 780 | | Kingston upon Thames | 88 | 9 | 79 | 28 | 22 | 6 | 23 | 1 | 22 | 139 | 32 | 107 | | Lambeth | 890 | 37 | 853 | 166 | 81 | 85 | 37 | 3 | 34 | 1,093 | 121 | 972 | | | 1,970 | 83 | 1,887 | 169 | 54 | 115 | 82 | 2 | 80 | 2,221 | 139 | 2,082 | |----------------|-------|-----|-------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-------|-----|-------| | Lewisham | 522 | 44 | 478 | 57 | 42 | 15 | 58 | 9 | 49 | 637 | 95 | 542 | | Merton | 1,851 | 242 | 1,609 | 70 | 39 | 31 | 117 | 5 | 112 | 2,038 | 286 | 1,752 | | Newham | 61 | 5 | 56 | 28 | 11 | 17 | 14 | 3 | 11 | 103 | 19 | 84 | | Redbridge | 449 | 34 | 415 | 52 | 28 | 24 | 30 | 8 | 22 | 531 | 70 | 461 | | Richmond upon Thames | 2,661 | 160 | 2,501 | 117 | 41 | 76 | 90 | 7 | 83 | 2,868 | 208 | 2,660 | | Southwark | 431 | 24 | 407 | 51 | 15 | 36 | 187 | 1 | 186 | 669 | 40 | 629 | | Sutton | 1,883 | 54 | 1,829 | 31 | 10 | 21 | 21 | 11 | 10 | 1,935 | 75 | 1,860 | | Tower Hamlets | 481 | 114 | 367 | 84 | 43 | 41 | 43 | 0 | 43 | 608 | 157 | 451 | | Waltham Forest | 1,256 | 26 | 1,230 | 179 | 129 | 50 | 103 | 4 | 99 | 1,538 | 159 | 1,379 | | Wandsworth | 286 | 67 | 219 | 179 | 195 | -16 | 421 | 33 | 388 | 886 | 295 | 591 | | Westminster | 40,817| 2,693| 38,124| 2,949| 1,636| 1,313| 2,593| 281| 2,312| 46,359| 4,610| 41,749|

Source: London Development Database | borough name | not started | under construction | pipeline | |------------------------------|-------------|--------------------|----------| | | proposed | existing | net | proposed | existing | net | proposed | existing | net | | Barking and Dagenham | 254 | 17 | 237 | 12,752 | 263 | 12,489 | 13,006 | 280 | 12,726 | | Barnet | 8,894 | 2,493 | 6,401 | 2,815 | 844 | 1,971 | 11,709 | 3,337 | 8,372 | | Bexley | 794 | 32 | 762 | 897 | 31 | 866 | 1,691 | 63 | 1,628 | | Brent | 6,366 | 346 | 6,020 | 1,661 | 405 | 1,256 | 8,027 | 751 | 7,276 | | Bromley | 1,862 | 203 | 1,659 | 1,507 | 331 | 1,176 | 3,369 | 534 | 2,835 | | Camden | 1,444 | 492 | 952 | 2,761 | 479 | 2,282 | 4,205 | 971 | 3,234 | | City of London | 145 | 7 | 138 | 403 | 14 | 389 | 548 | 21 | 527 | | Croydon | 3,551 | 261 | 3,290 | 2,393 | 84 | 2,309 | 5,944 | 345 | 5,599 | | Ealing | 5,550 | 778 | 4,772 | 2,053 | 535 | 1,518 | 7,603 | 1,313 | 6,290 | | Enfield | 678 | 143 | 535 | 1,400 | 234 | 1,166 | 2,078 | 377 | 1,701 | | Greenwich | 5,295 | 601 | 4,694 | 19,819 | 1,430 | 18,389 | 25,114 | 2,031 | 23,083 | | Hackney | 3,401 | 695 | 2,706 | 3,031 | 471 | 2,560 | 6,432 | 1,166 | 5,266 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,112 | 191 | 921 | 526 | 30 | 496 | 1,638 | 221 | 1,417 | | Haringey | 1,045 | 200 | 845 | 1,502 | 67 | 1,435 | 2,547 | 267 | 2,280 | | Harrow | 1,858 | 330 | 1,528 | 1,621 | 515 | 1,106 | 3,479 | 845 | 2,634 | | Havering | 3,091 | 570 | 2,521 | 724 | 129 | 595 | 3,815 | 699 | 3,116 | | Hillingdon | 1,746 | 106 | 1,640 | 2,834 | 83 | 2,751 | 4,580 | 189 | 4,391 | | Hounslow | 693 | 137 | 556 | 1,928 | 159 | 1,769 | 2,621 | 296 | 2,325 | | Islington | 3,515 | 382 | 3,133 | 3,294 | 442 | 2,852 | 6,809 | 824 | 5,985 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,769 | 895 | 874 | 1,423 | 144 | 1,279 | 3,192 | 1,039 | 2,153 | | Kingston upon Thames | 710 | 119 | 591 | 689 | 52 | 637 | 1,399 | 171 | 1,228 | | Lambeth | 3,401 | 720 | 2,681 | 3,951 | 1,315 | 2,636 | 7,352 | 2,035 | 5,317 | | Lewisham | 3,990 | 842 | 3,148 | 2,743 | 226 | 2,517 | 6,733 | 1,068 | 5,665 | | | 1,065 | 135 | 930 | 1,194 | 99 | 1,095 | 2,259 | 234 | 2,025 | |----------------|-------|-----|-----|-------|----|-------|-------|-----|-------| | Merton | 7,167 | 168 | 6,999 | 5,627 | 253 | 5,374 | 12,794 | 421 | 12,373 | | Newham | 815 | 43 | 772 | 717 | 61 | 656 | 1,532 | 104 | 1,428 | | Redbridge | 786 | 127 | 659 | 815 | 104 | 711 | 1,601 | 231 | 1,370 | | Richmond upon Thames | 4,470 | 248 | 4,222 | 3,689 | 213 | 3,476 | 8,159 | 461 | 7,698 | | Southwark | 397 | 88 | 309 | 1,261 | 316 | 945 | 1,658 | 404 | 1,254 | | Sutton | 10,716| 795 | 9,921 | 10,164| 594 | 9,570 | 20,880 | 1,389| 19,491 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,064 | 175 | 889 | 671 | 150 | 521 | 1,735 | 325 | 1,410 | | Waltham Forest | 3,578 | 248 | 3,330 | 2,377 | 129 | 2,248 | 5,955 | 377 | 5,578 | | Wandsworth | 2,070 | 467 | 1,603 | 1,460 | 281 | 1,179 | 3,530 | 748 | 2,782 | | Westminster | 93,292| 13,054| 80,238 | 100,702| 10,483| 90,219| 193,994| 23,537| 170,457|

Source: London Development Database | borough name | new build | conversions | change of use | total | |------------------------------|-----------|-------------|---------------|-------| | | gross | existing | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | gross | existing | net | | Barking and Dagenham | 12,783 | 259 | 12,524 | 37 | 17 | 20 | 186 | 4 | 182 | 13,006 | 280 | 12,726 | | Barnet | 11,001 | 3,039 | 7,962 | 580 | 272 | 308 | 128 | 26 | 102 | 11,709 | 3,337 | 8,372 | | Bexley | 1,559 | 30 | 1,529 | 45 | 21 | 24 | 87 | 12 | 75 | 1,691 | 63 | 1,628 | | Brent | 7,704 | 647 | 7,057 | 143 | 95 | 48 | 180 | 9 | 171 | 8,027 | 751 | 7,276 | | Bromley | 2,913 | 409 | 2,504 | 246 | 99 | 147 | 210 | 26 | 184 | 3,369 | 534 | 2,835 | | Camden | 3,053 | 323 | 2,730 | 517 | 605 | -88 | 635 | 43 | 592 | 4,205 | 971 | 3,234 | | City of London | 363 | 14 | 349 | 11 | 1 | 10 | 174 | 6 | 168 | 548 | 21 | 527 | | Croydon | 5,216 | 150 | 5,066 | 448 | 164 | 284 | 280 | 31 | 249 | 5,944 | 345 | 5,599 | | Ealing | 6,724 | 1,046 | 5,678 | 390 | 241 | 149 | 489 | 26 | 463 | 7,603 | 1,313 | 6,290 | | Enfield | 1,637 | 221 | 1,416 | 252 | 124 | 128 | 189 | 32 | 157 | 2,078 | 377 | 1,701 | | Greenwich | 24,701 | 1,990 | 22,711 | 82 | 27 | 55 | 331 | 14 | 317 | 25,114 | 2,031 | 23,083 | | Hackney | 5,830 | 918 | 4,912 | 393 | 202 | 191 | 209 | 46 | 163 | 6,432 | 1,166 | 5,266 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 1,096 | 17 | 1,079 | 326 | 198 | 128 | 216 | 6 | 210 | 1,638 | 221 | 1,417 | | Haringey | 1,884 | 77 | 1,807 | 358 | 184 | 174 | 305 | 6 | 299 | 2,547 | 267 | 2,280 | | Harrow | 3,147 | 733 | 2,414 | 223 | 100 | 123 | 109 | 12 | 97 | 3,479 | 845 | 2,634 | | Havering | 3,605 | 639 | 2,966 | 116 | 49 | 67 | 94 | 11 | 83 | 3,815 | 699 | 3,116 | | Hillingdon | 4,395 | 133 | 4,262 | 125 | 45 | 80 | 60 | 11 | 49 | 4,580 | 189 | 4,391 | | Hounslow | 2,351 | 166 | 2,185 | 118 | 76 | 42 | 152 | 54 | 98 | 2,621 | 296 | 2,325 | | Islington | 5,713 | 616 | 5,097 | 357 | 188 | 169 | 739 | 20 | 719 | 6,809 | 824 | 5,985 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 2,674 | 616 | 2,058 | 275 | 391 | -116 | 243 | 32 | 211 | 3,192 | 1,039 | 2,153 | | Kingston upon Thames | 1,152 | 81 | 1,071 | 145 | 86 | 59 | 102 | 4 | 98 | 1,399 | 171 | 1,228 | | Lambeth | 6,650 | 1,746 | 4,904 | 520 | 272 | 248 | 182 | 17 | 165 | 7,352 | 2,035 | 5,317 | | Lewisham | 6,095 | 882 | 5,213 | 367 | 168 | 199 | 271 | 18 | 253 | 6,733 | 1,068 | 5,665 | | | 1,761 | 118 | 1,643 | 120 | 96 | 24 | 378 | 20 | 358 | 2,259 | 234 | 2,025 | |----------------|-------|-----|-------|-----|----|----|-----|----|-----|--------|-----|-------| | Merton | 12,582| 330 | 12,252| 67 | 43 | 24 | 145 | 48 | 97 | 12,794 | 421 | 12,373 | | Newham | 1,351 | 16 | 1,335 | 138 | 69 | 69 | 43 | 19 | 24 | 1,532 | 104 | 1,428 | | Redbridge | 1,197 | 105 | 1,092 | 197 | 116| 81 | 207 | 10 | 197 | 1,601 | 231 | 1,370 | | Richmond upon Thames | 7,705 | 301 | 7,404 | 267 | 143| 124| 187 | 17 | 170 | 8,159 | 461 | 7,698 | | Southwark | 1,318 | 332 | 986 | 102 | 44 | 58 | 238 | 28 | 210 | 1,658 | 404 | 1,254 | | Sutton | 20,382| 923 | 19,459| 213 | 395| -182| 285 | 71 | 214 | 20,880 | 1,389| 19,491 | | Tower Hamlets | 1,385 | 240 | 1,145 | 160 | 81 | 79 | 190 | 4 | 186 | 1,735 | 325 | 1,410 | | Waltham Forest | 5,268 | 139 | 5,129 | 361 | 224| 137| 326 | 14 | 312 | 5,955 | 377 | 5,578 | | Wandsworth | 2,290 | 353 | 1,937 | 407 | 317| 90 | 833 | 78 | 755 | 3,530 | 748 | 2,782 | | Westminster | 177,485| 17,609| 159,876| 8,106| 5,153| 2,953| 8,403| 775| 7,628| 193,994| 23,537| 170,457|

Source: London Development Database | Borough | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 122 | 165 | 146 | 80 | 116 | 52 | | Barnet | 134 | 78 | 83 | 113 | 100 | 94 | | Bexley | 58 | 94 | 51 | 110 | 83 | 76 | | Brent | 168 | 199 | 149 | 133 | 182 | 185 | | Bromley | 34 | 44 | 49 | 36 | 48 | 55 | | Camden | 115 | 227 | 113 | 136 | 140 | 134 | | City of London | 368 | 525 | 1263 | 330 | 213 | 457 | | Croydon | 90 | 115 | 106 | 131 | 97 | 127 | | Ealing | 180 | 121 | 115 | 162 | 152 | 144 | | Enfield | 84 | 52 | 82 | 65 | 71 | 61 | | Greenwich | 115 | 161 | 248 | 211 | 147 | 337 | | Hackney | 236 | 275 | 238 | 200 | 278 | 206 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 219 | 160 | 227 | 187 | 301 | 164 | | Haringey | 117 | 136 | 173 | 94 | 107 | 119 | | Harrow | 71 | 101 | 90 | 62 | 82 | 52 | | Havering | 95 | 60 | 41 | 55 | 99 | 115 | | Hillingdon | 41 | 85 | 68 | 91 | 36 | 57 | | Hounslow | 117 | 156 | 95 | 159 | 61 | 111 | | Islington | 224 | 319 | 254 | 244 | 272 | 313 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 209 | 170 | 163 | 137 | 193 | 231 | | Kingston upon Thames | 102 | 45 | 61 | 77 | 64 | 64 | | Lambeth | 185 | 203 | 214 | 130 | 187 | 183 | | Lewisham | 170 | 146 | 172 | 166 | 229 | 123 | | Merton | 101 | 64 | 95 | 80 | 69 | 63 | | Newham | 261 | 269 | 347 | 368 | 312 | 398 | | Redbridge | 138 | 151 | 115 | 87 | 373 | 161 | | Richmond upon Thames | 91 | 83 | 60 | 58 | 47 | 107 | | Southwark | 277 | 285 | 277 | 335 | 230 | 223 | | Sutton | 63 | 70 | 117 | 92 | 58 | 57 | | Tower Hamlets | 416 | 318 | 447 | 310 | 380 | 318 | | Waltham Forest | 123 | 130 | 129 | 132 | 121 | 111 | | Wandsworth | 148 | 156 | 151 | 173 | 143 | 206 | | Westminster | 283 | 158 | 252 | 153 | 200 | 206 | | London | 134 | 129 | 151 | 138 | 148 | 140 |

Source: London Development Database | Borough | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | |-------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------| | Barking and Dagenham | 95 | 123 | 139 | 238 | 111 | | Barnet | 65 | 62 | 99 | 64 | 87 | | Bexley | 44 | 48 | 76 | 81 | 65 | | Brent | 113 | 106 | 144 | 130 | 157 | | Bromley | 54 | 55 | 35 | 36 | 52 | | Camden | 106 | 141 | 232 | 195 | 202 | | City of London | 454 | 558 | 505 | 500 | 316 | | Croydon | 77 | 72 | 98 | 103 | 102 | | Ealing | 195 | 136 | 159 | 109 | 116 | | Enfield | 75 | 92 | 68 | 61 | 87 | | Greenwich | 170 | 138 | 122 | 111 | 239 | | Hackney | 266 | 183 | 234 | 249 | 174 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 116 | 143 | 200 | 208 | 225 | | Haringey | 175 | 138 | 162 | 106 | 136 | | Harrow | 93 | 79 | 71 | 100 | 78 | | Havering | 55 | 63 | 71 | 95 | 47 | | Hillingdon | 49 | 54 | 60 | 94 | 44 | | Hounslow | 120 | 102 | 120 | 184 | 94 | | Islington | 225 | 236 | 285 | 200 | 183 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 135 | 167 | 173 | 128 | 200 | | Kingston upon Thames | 86 | 115 | 50 | 46 | 55 | | Lambeth | 141 | 163 | 172 | 155 | 290 | | Lewisham | 109 | 124 | 136 | 188 | 164 | | Merton | 92 | 96 | 47 | 67 | 100 | | Newham | 163 | 292 | 267 | 240 | 221 | | Redbridge | 124 | 122 | 110 | 100 | 217 | | Richmond upon Thames | 74 | 58 | 82 | 71 | 53 | | Southwark | 264 | 254 | 220 | 226 | 353 | | Sutton | 60 | 53 | 89 | 66 | 61 | | Tower Hamlets | 248 | 298 | 313 | 363 | 389 | | Waltham Forest | 139 | 125 | 131 | 117 | 170 | | Wandsworth | 169 | 135 | 172 | 182 | 104 | | Westminster | 259 | 206 | 262 | 258 | 139 | | London | 122 | 117 | 128 | 138 | 136 |

Source: London Development Database Map HPM1: Total Housing Provision 2010/11

Map HPM2: Total Housing Provision as a percentage of 2008 London Plan target Map HPM3: Net Conventional Affordable Housing Supply as a percentage of total net conventional supply, 2008/09 to 2010/11

Map HPM4: Housing Pipeline as at 31/03/2011 Affordable housing delivery monitor 2010/11

4.48 As explained in the introduction to the Housing Provision Monitor, the measure of affordable housing delivery used in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy is very different from the measure of housing provision used in the London Plan. Affordable housing delivery is measured in gross terms and includes acquisitions of existing private sector homes for use as affordable housing. It is therefore typically considerably higher in any given year than the net provision of affordable housing in planning terms reported in the main body of the Annual Monitoring Report and the Housing Provision Monitor.

4.49 The data source for monitoring affordable housing delivery targets is the set of statistics on ‘affordable housing supply’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government. These statistics are compiled from a range of sources, but the vast majority of delivery in recent years has been funded the Homes and Communities Agency.

4.50 Table AHM1 below shows affordable housing delivery in London by type in the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11. Over this period a total of 40,910 homes were delivered, of which 22,520 were social housing and 18,390 were intermediate housing. As DCLG publish their statistics approximately six months after the end of each financial year, performance against the four-year targets in the Mayor’s London Housing Strategy will be assessed in late 2012.

4.51 Figure 4.2 below shows the trend in total affordable housing delivery in London since 1991/92. Delivery peaked at just over 17,000 in 1995/96, fell to 8,270 in 2000/01 and rose again to a recent peak of 15,110 in 2007/08.

______________________________________________________________________

23 See Housing Live Tables: http://is.gd/CLGaffordable

24 Data from Housing Live Table 1000 4.52 Table AHM2 shows delivery of social and intermediate housing by London borough in 2010/11. Note that whereas DCLG previously published statistics on the basis of area receiving funding and area where the homes were located, it now only uses the latter definition. The borough with the highest affordable housing delivery in 2010/11 was Tower Hamlets, closely followed by Greenwich. There was again very wide variation between boroughs in terms of both total delivery and the split between social and intermediate housing.

4.53 DCLG does not publish equivalent statistics on starts of affordable housing, but the Homes and Communities Agency does publish such statistics on the homes it funds, which as stated above constitute the vast majority of affordable housing delivery in London. In 2010/11 there were a total of 16,331 affordable homes started in London, the highest figure since monitoring began in 2004/05. Table AHM3 shows HCA-funded starts of affordable housing in 2010/11 by borough and by tenure.

Affordable housing delivery monitor tables follow, starting on the next page (and including one map). | Affordable housing delivery type | 2008/09 | 2009/10 | 2010/11 | Total | |----------------------------------|---------|---------|---------|-------| | **Social Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 6,310 | 7,080 | 9,130 | 22,520| | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 4,140 | 5,300 | 5,810 | 15,250| | other Homes and Communities Agency schemes | 1,760 | 1,400 | 2,080 | 5,240 | | Local authorities | 10 | 20 | 750 | 780 | | of which HCA grant funded (new build) | .. | .. | 260 | 260 | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 180 | 300 | 150 | 630 | | of which, reported on IMS | 60 | 240 | 90 | 390 | | Private Finance Initiative | 40 | 20 | 120 | 180 | | **Intermediate Affordable Housing** | 6,770 | 6,510 | 5,110 | 18,390| | **Intermediate Rent, of which:** | | | | | | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 470 | 810 | 1,350 | 2,630 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 460 | 740 | 1,210 | 2,410 | | **Low Cost Home Ownership, of which:** | 6,300 | 5,700 | 3,760 | 15,760| | Homes and Communities Agency (new build) | 3,800 | 3,240 | 2,780 | 9,820 | | Homes and Communities Agency (acquisitions) | 1,280 | 1,460 | 80 | 2,820 | | other Homes and Communities Agency schemes | - | - | - | - | | Section 106 (nil grant) new build: total | 400 | 470 | 300 | 1,170 | | of which, reported on IMS | 260 | 320 | 260 | 840 | | Assisted Purchase Schemes | 820 | 530 | 610 | 1,960 | | **All affordable** | 13,070 | 13,590 | 14,250 | 40,910|

Source DCLG See DCLG Housing Live Table 1000 and statistical release for full notes and definitions Note: The 2010/11 figure was revised by DCLG in January 2012 | borough | social | intermediate | total | |-------------------------------|--------|--------------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 110 | 150 | 270 | | Barnet | 300 | 80 | 390 | | Bexley | 260 | 50 | 310 | | Brent | 340 | 270 | 620 | | Bromley | 380 | 120 | 500 | | Camden | 180 | 50 | 230 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 550 | 200 | 750 | | Ealing | 140 | 120 | 260 | | Enfield | 370 | 180 | 550 | | Greenwich | 810 | 530 | 1,340 | | Hackney | 370 | 320 | 690 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 10 | 50 | 60 | | Haringey | 220 | 50 | 270 | | Harrow | 230 | 80 | 310 | | Havering | 120 | 50 | 170 | | Hillingdon | 260 | 120 | 380 | | Hounslow | 400 | 280 | 670 | | Islington | 90 | 0 | 90 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 20 | 10 | 30 | | Kingston upon Thames | 70 | 10 | 80 | | Lambeth | 700 | 310 | 1,010 | | Lewisham | 370 | 150 | 520 | | Merton | 50 | 70 | 110 | | Newham | 310 | 260 | 580 | | Redbridge | 170 | 80 | 250 | | Richmond upon Thames | 40 | 0 | 40 | | Southwark | 390 | 420 | 810 | | Sutton | 150 | 80 | 230 | | Tower Hamlets | 990 | 440 | 1,430 | | Waltham Forest | 280 | 170 | 460 | | Wandsworth | 20 | 210 | 230 | | Westminster | 440 | 190 | 620 | | London | 9,130 | 5,110 | 14,250|

Source DCLG | borough | social | intermediate | total | |-------------------------------|--------|--------------|-------| | Barking and Dagenham | 234 | 128 | 362 | | Barnet | 289 | 69 | 358 | | Bexley | 172 | 47 | 219 | | Brent | 511 | 171 | 682 | | Bromley | 400 | 35 | 435 | | Camden | 398 | 65 | 463 | | City of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 473 | 79 | 552 | | Ealing | 451 | 212 | 663 | | Enfield | 479 | 75 | 554 | | Greenwich | 342 | 115 | 457 | | Hackney | 585 | 366 | 951 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 20 | 88 | 108 | | Haringey | 178 | 281 | 459 | | Harrow | 136 | 195 | 331 | | Havering | 505 | 122 | 627 | | Hillingdon | 263 | 220 | 483 | | Hounslow | 289 | 123 | 412 | | Islington | 389 | 395 | 784 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 32 | 0 | 32 | | Kingston upon Thames | 45 | 8 | 53 | | Lambeth | 497 | 226 | 723 | | Lewisham | 677 | 315 | 992 | | Merton | 205 | 195 | 400 | | Newham | 648 | 311 | 959 | | Redbridge | 136 | 65 | 201 | | Richmond upon Thames | 176 | 45 | 221 | | Southwark | 665 | 238 | 903 | | Sutton | 175 | 89 | 264 | | Tower Hamlets | 880 | 271 | 1,151 | | Waltham Forest | 563 | 180 | 743 | | Wandsworth | 262 | 209 | 471 | | Westminster | 257 | 61 | 318 | | Total | 11,332 | 4,999 | 16,331|

Source: HCA London 2008-11 Outturn Statement Note: DCLG no longer publish statistics on the basis of area providing funding Totals may not sum due to rounding Affordability Thresholds

4.54 This section relates to Policy 3.10 of the 2011 London Plan and updates the affordability thresholds as at February 2012.

4.55 The London Plan defines affordable housing as housing provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market, and which should:

- meet the needs of eligible households including availability at a cost low enough for them to afford, determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices
- include provisions for the homes to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or
- if these restrictions are lifted, for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision.

4.56 The early minor alteration to the London Plan published in November 2011 seeks, inter alia, to modify Policy 3.10 to include the government’s new ‘affordable rent’ product within the definition of affordable housing, alongside the existing categories of social rented and intermediate housing in accordance with revisions made by the Government to PPS3.

Intermediate Housing

5.57 Paragraph 3.62 of the 2011 London Plan sets out the income thresholds for intermediate housing and states that these will be updated on an annual basis in the London Plan Annual Monitoring Reports. The thresholds are therefore to be updated as follows.

4.58 Intermediate provision is sub-market housing, where costs, including service charges, are above target rents for social rented housing, but where costs, including service charges, are affordable by households on incomes of less than £64,300\\textsuperscript{25}. This figure has been updated from the London Plan (2011) figure of £52,500 on the basis of the latest data (as of February 2012) on lower quartile house prices in London, and is an increase from the figure of £64,000 in AMR 7.

4.59 In his 2011 replacement London Plan, the Mayor sets out a higher intermediate housing income threshold of £74,000 for households with dependents, in order to reflect the higher cost of both developing and buying family-sized homes in London. This figure was derived by uprating the upper income threshold in the Plan (£61,400) by 20%. The upper threshold for intermediate family housing can therefore be updated by adding 20% to the general threshold of £64,300, for a figure of £77,200.

4.60 Intermediate housing can include shared ownership, sub-market rent provision (including the new affordable rent product) and market provision, including key worker provision, where this affordability criterion is met and where provision is appropriate to meeting identified requirements.

4.61 For the criterion that provision is affordable to be met, the purchase price must be no greater than 3.5 times the household income limit specified above (i.e. no greater than £225,000), or (for products where a rent is paid) the annual housing costs, including rent and service charge, should be no greater than 40% of net household income. (This is to reflect a different level of disposable income, relative to lower income households dependent on social housing). In the case of two or multiple income households, lenders will generally lend at lower multipliers in relation to incomes of household members other than the highest income earner, and consequently market access will generally be more restricted for such households.

4.62 Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that intermediate provision provides for households with a range of incomes below the upper limit, and provides a range of dwelling types in terms of a mix of unit sizes (measured by number of bedrooms), and that average housing costs, including service charges, to households for whom intermediate housing is provided are affordable by households on annual incomes of £42,150 pa (i.e. the midpoint of the range between £20,000 (updated from AMR 7 in line with RPI) and £64,300). On this basis, average housing costs, including service charges, would be about £985 a month or £230 a week (housing costs at 40% of net income, net income being assumed to be 70% of gross income). This figure could be used for monitoring purposes.

Local Affordable Housing Policies

4.63 PPS3 requires boroughs to set affordable housing targets in their Local Development Frameworks. London Plan Policy 3.11 states that these targets should be consistent with the overall strategic target of at least 13,200 affordable homes in London per annum. While boroughs are free to set targets in absolute or percentage terms, the London Plan sets out a range of issues that boroughs should take into account, including the priority accorded to affordable family housing, the need to promote mixed and balanced communities, capacity to accommodate development and

\\textsuperscript{25} The income threshold for intermediate housing is currently set at a different level for planning and housing investment purposes. Under the Homes and Communities Agency investment criteria, the upper income level for intermediate housing is £60,000. development viability taking, so far as possible, account of future availability of resources. Table 4.9 sets out the affordable housing policies adopted by the boroughs.

| borough | borough policy target (or practice) as at 2002 | adopted borough policy target as at December 2011 (numerical / percentage) | emerging borough policy target December 2011 (numerical / percentage) - n/a if recently adopted | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barking & Dagenham | 25% | 50% (August 2010) | n/a | | Barnet | 30% | 50% | 30% (50% in AAP areas) | | Bexley | 25% | 35% | 50% borough wide with 35% minimum on individual schemes. | | Brent | 30-50% | 50% | n/a | | Bromley | 20% | 35% | n/a | | Camden | 50% proposed | 50% for >50 dwellings, 10-50% for \<50 dwellings | n/a | | City of London | None | 30% | n/a | | Croydon | 40% | 40%-50% | 35% borough wide target. Seeking 20% on-sites in year 1 of the plan with a yearly review of this target using a 'Dynamic Viability Model'. | | Ealing | 50% | 50% | 50% | | Enfield | 25% | 40% | n/a | | Greenwich | 35% | 35% minimum (50% on greenfield/readily developable former employment land) | 35% | | Hackney | 25% | 50% (60/40 split) | n/a. | | Hammersmith & Fulham | 65% proposed | 40% | n/a | | Haringey | 30% | 50% | 50%/410 u/pa | | Harrow | 30% | London Plan | 40% /140u/pa | | Havering | None | 50% (2008) | n/a | | Hillingdon | 25% | 365 u/pa (50% ) | 356 u/pa (50%) | | Hounslow | 50% | 445 u/pa (50%) | 445u/pa (50%) | | Islington | 25% | 50% | n/a | | Kensington & Chelsea | 33% | Minimum of 200 units per annum from 2011/12 (borough wide target) with a site specific policy of 50% affordable by floor area | n/a | | Kingston upon Thames | 50% | 50% | n/a | | borough | borough policy target (or practice) as at 2002 | adopted borough policy target as at December 2011 (numerical / percentage) | emerging borough policy target December 2011 (numerical / percentage) – n/a if recently adopted | |--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Lambeth | 35-50% | 40% (50% with grant) | n/a | | Lewisham | 30% | 35% | n/a | | Merton | 30% | 40% (with 60:40 split) | n/a | | Newham | 25% | London Plan | 50% overall (35-50% on individual sites) | | Redbridge | 25% | 50% (2008) | n/a | | Richmond upon Thames | 40% | 50% | n/a | | Southwark | 25% | 8,558 (equates to 35% borough-wide but varies locally) | n/a | | Sutton | 25% | 50% | n/a | | Tower Hamlets | 25-33% | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | | Waltham Forest | 40% | To provide at least 50% (5,700 homes) of homes as affordable over the plan period. 60/40 split. | 50% (5,700 homes) | | Wandsworth | None | Minimum 373 units annum (3,725 borough wide target over 10 years) to be reviewed on adoption of the LP. Site specific policy of the max reasonable amount with a minimum target of 33% on each site | n/a | | Westminster | | 50% overall, 35%-50% on individual sites subject to viability | n/a | Achieving an inclusive environment

London Plan Policies

4.64 The London Plan published in July 2011 (see http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/londonplan) contains a number of policies which specifically promote inclusive access to the built environment for disabled and older people. The key policies are:

- 7.2 An Inclusive Environment which requires all new development in London to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design
- 7.1 Lifetime Neighbourhoods which deals with places and spaces designed to meet the needs of the community at all stages of people’s lives and meet the ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’ criteria
- 3.5 Housing Design which requires that all new dwellings have adequately sized rooms, convenient and efficient room layouts and meet the needs of Londoners over their lifetime, and address social inclusion
- 3.8 Housing Choice which requires that all new housing is built to Lifetime Homes standards and ten per cent of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users; and that account is taken of the changing age structure of London’s population and in particular the varied needs of older Londoners
- 4.5 London’s Visitor Infrastructure which requires that at least 10% of new hotel bedrooms are wheelchair accessible
- 2.15 Town Centres which supports the provision of Shopmobility schemes and other measures to improve access to goods and services for older and disabled Londoners
- 3.1 Equal Life Chances for All which aims to ensure that the barriers to meeting the needs of and expanding opportunities for particular groups and communities and tackling inequality across London are addressed.
- Plus a number of other policies on the design of the public realm, car parking facilities, the walking and pedestrian environment, accessible sports facilities, access to arts and culture, and social infrastructure.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

4.65 The GLA publishes Supplementary Planning Guidance to provide detailed advice and guidance on the policies in the London Plan. The SPG ‘Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment’ published in 2004 provides advice on implementing the inclusive design policies contained in the previous London Plan. The GLA is now updating this advice and mainstreaming it into the new SPGs being published on particular topics. This should help to ensure a wider readership of the inclusive design advice by developers, designers, planners, and the wider community, as well as by access consultants, local access groups, and organisations of disabled and Deaf people.

4.66 Advice on implementing policies 7.1 Lifetime Neighbourhoods, 7.2 Inclusive Design, 7.5 on the design of the public realm and other relevant access policies will be contained in the forthcoming SPG Shaping Neighbourhoods to be published in 2012.

4.67 Advice on accessible hotel bedrooms will be included in the Town Centres SPG to be published in 2012. 4.68 Advice on implementing policies 3.5 housing design and 3.8 housing choice has been included in the draft Housing SPG, published for 12 weeks public consultation in December 2011 (http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/planning/housing-supplementary-planning-guidance). The draft housing SPG includes advice on implementing the Interim London Housing Design Guide (http://www.designforlondon.gov.uk/uploads/media/Interim_London_Housing_Design_Guide.pdf) which incorporates the 16 Lifetime Home standards (www.lifetimehomes.org.uk). It also includes in Annex 2.2 best practice advice on wheelchair accessible housing including a diagram to illustrate the key features of wheelchair accessible housing (see page 84-91). For full technical details see Habinteg Housing Association’s Wheelchair Housing Design Guide at http://www.habinteg.org.uk/main.cfm?type=WCHDG.

4.69 The London Development Database began collecting data on whether new dwellings are designed to meet Lifetime Homes and the Wheelchair Housing Design Guide standards on permissions granted from 01/04/2008 onwards.

4.70 All figures in Table 4.10 and Table 4.11 are ‘gross’ (i.e. existing units are not subtracted) and calculated at ‘scheme level’. This means that some units may be counted twice in cases where a revision to part of a scheme, usually in the form of details or reserved matters, is approved in the same year as the original permission.

4.71 LDD records four development types, new build, extension, change of use and conversion, Table 4.11 only includes new build units and extensions, while Table 4.10 includes all development types. Although developers should seek to construct all new dwellings to meet Lifetime Homes standards, there are often practical difficulties that can arise when seeking to modify existing buildings through conversion or change of use.

| borough | units approved | Lifetime Homes approved | % Lifetime Homes | Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | % Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | |--------------------------|----------------|-------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 111 | 81 | 73.0 | 6 | 5.4 | | Barnet | 2,089 | 658 | 31.5 | 39 | 1.9 | | Bexley | 313 | 260 | 83.1 | 132 | 42.2 | | Brent | 2,077 | 1,195 | 57.5 | 161 | 7.8 | | Bromley | 1,444 | 188 | 18.5 | 18 | 1.2 | | Camden | 1,210 | 639 | 52.8 | 122 | 10.1 | | City of London | 95 | 27 | 28.4 | 27 | 28.4 | | Croydon | 2,510 | 1,760 | 72.3 | 248 | 9.9 | | Ealing | 5,464 | 5,237 | 96.0 | 529 | 9.7 |

### Table 4.10 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2010/11 (all development types)

| borough | units approved | Lifetime Homes approved | % Lifetime Homes | Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | % Wheelchair Accessible homes approved | |--------------------------|----------------|-------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | Enfield | 473 | 226 | 47.8 | 77 | 16.3 | | Greenwich | 3,970 | 648 | 16.3 | 38 | 1.0 | | Hackney | 1,429 | 743 | 52.0 | 115 | 8.0 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 568 | 219 | 38.6 | 27 | 4.8 | | Haringey | 764 | 16 | 2.1 | 2 | 0.3 | | Harrow | 1,247 | 865 | 70.2 | 86 | 6.9 | | Havering | 1,692 | 757 | 42.3 | 61 | 3.6 | | Hillingdon | 1,410 | 1,328 | 94.2 | 187 | 13.3 | | Hounslow | 492 | 38 | 7.7 | 10 | 2.0 | | Islington | 2,232 | 1,740 | 78.0 | 147 | 6.6 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 1,021 | 721 | 70.5 | 75 | 7.3 | | Kingston upon Thames | 430 | 320 | 74.4 | 71 | 16.5 | | Lambeth | 2,484 | 1,246 | 50.2 | 176 | 7.1 | | Lewisham | 1,325 | 803 | 60.6 | 83 | 6.3 | | Merton | 704 | 223 | 31.7 | 80 | 11.4 | | Newham | 2,714 | 2,434 | 89.7 | 226 | 8.3 | | Redbridge | 605 | 154 | 26.1 | 62 | 10.2 | | Richmond upon Thames | 734 | 437 | 59.5 | 36 | 4.9 | | Southwark | 3,300 | 2,859 | 86.9 | 231 | 7.0 | | Sutton | 562 | 403 | 71.7 | 84 | 14.9 | | Tower Hamlets | 3,831 | 78 | 2.0 | 9 | 0.2 | | Waltham Forest | 950 | 794 | 83.6 | 69 | 7.3 | | Wandsworth | 3,147 | 2,108 | 67.0 | 237 | 7.5 | | Westminster | 1,100 | 442 | 47.1 | 80 | 7.3 | | Total: | 52,497 | 29,647 | 56.8 | 3,551 | 6.8 |

Source: London Development Database

### Table 4.11 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2010/11 (New Build residential developments)

| borough | New Build units approved | Lifetime Homes from New Build | % Lifetime Homes from New Build | Wheelchair Accessible homes from New Build | % Wheelchair Accessible homes from New Build | |--------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 78 | 74 | 94.9 | 4 | 5.1 | | Barnet | 1,774 | 631 | 35.6 | 38 | 2.1 | | Bexley | 254 | 251 | 98.8 | 123 | 48.4 | Table 4.11 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Accessible Homes approved during 2010/11 (New Build residential developments)

| borough | New Build units approved | Lifetime Homes from New Build | % Lifetime Homes from New Build | Wheelchair Accessible Homes from New Build | % Wheelchair Accessible from New Build | |--------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Brent | 1,894 | 1,186 | 62.6 | 152 | 8.0 | | Bromley | 1,259 | 185 | 20.9 | 15 | 1.2 | | Camden | 686 | 590 | 86.0 | 96 | 14.0 | | City of London | 9 | 9 | 100.0 | 9 | 100.0 | | Croydon | 2,073 | 1,719 | 85.6 | 240 | 11.6 | | Ealing | 5,200 | 5,109 | 98.4 | 517 | 9.9 | | Enfield | 312 | 226 | 72.4 | 77 | 24.7 | | Greenwich | 3,878 | 603 | 15.5 | 38 | 1.0 | | Hackney | 1,058 | 742 | 70.1 | 115 | 10.9 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | 233 | 169 | 72.5 | 19 | 8.2 | | Haringey | 400 | 16 | 4.0 | 2 | 0.5 | | Harrow | 949 | 729 | 76.8 | 71 | 7.5 | | Havering | 1,648 | 757 | 43.5 | 61 | 3.7 | | Hillingdon | 1,353 | 1,291 | 95.4 | 185 | 13.7 | | Hounslow | 422 | 35 | 8.3 | 7 | 1.7 | | Islington | 1,811 | 1,717 | 94.7 | 144 | 8.0 | | Kensington and Chelsea | 802 | 708 | 88.3 | 69 | 8.6 | | Kingston upon Thames | 305 | 286 | 93.8 | 60 | 19.7 | | Lambeth | 2,103 | 1,246 | 59.2 | 176 | 8.4 | | Lewisham | 924 | 756 | 81.8 | 79 | 8.5 | | Merton | 341 | 142 | 41.6 | 40 | 11.7 | | Newham | 2,522 | 2,341 | 92.8 | 218 | 8.6 | | Redbridge | 555 | 144 | 25.9 | 61 | 11.0 | | Richmond upon Thames | 586 | 429 | 73.2 | 35 | 6.0 | | Southwark | 3,042 | 2,783 | 91.8 | 223 | 7.3 | | Sutton | 470 | 399 | 84.9 | 80 | 17.0 | | Tower Hamlets | 3,646 | 78 | 2.1 | 9 | 0.2 | | Waltham Forest | 811 | 789 | 97.3 | 69 | 8.5 | | Wandsworth | 2,789 | 2,076 | 74.4 | 218 | 7.8 | | Westminster | 476 | 340 | 78.1 | 49 | 10.3 | | London | 44,663 | 28,556 | 64.2 | 3,299 | 7.4 |

Source: London Development Database

4.72 The figures from LDD show a decrease in the overall percentage in Lifetime Homes compared to AMR 7. Although this may reflect a real trend, the low figures in some boroughs are thought to relate to ongoing problems in monitoring compliance to a design standard that is rarely specified in the conditions associated with the planning permission. Staffing issues in the monitoring teams of specific boroughs may also have played a part. The small increase in the proportion of Wheelchair housing (which is often noted as part of the development description for the scheme so is more easily identified) is a positive development and may suggest that the decline in Lifetime Homes recorded is not a real reflection of the quality of design of new housing coming forward. ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT

PTAL Map

4.73 In several important areas of planning policy (dealing, for example, with housing density and parking provision), the London Plan uses public transport accessibility levels (PTALs). At examination in public of the London Plan (EiP), questions were raised about how developers and others can make sure they are working on the basis of the most recent PTALs, given that they change as public transport services are altered and improved.

4.74 The Mayor’s representatives agreed at the EiP that the definitive PTAL map (see Figure 4.3) would be published in the AMR. The 2010 PTAL map has been included here as it is the current version for the time covered by this monitoring report and is the one used to calculate compliance with the density matrix. Extracts are available from TfL.

Figure 4.3 London Public Transport Accessibility (PTAL) Map 2010

Source: Transport for London © Crown copyright. All rights reserved. Greater London Authority 100032216 (2012) Crossrail Funding - planning obligations (S.106 agreements)

4.75 Paragraph 4.32 of the Use of Planning Obligations in the Funding of Crossrail SPG refers to the use of the Annual Monitoring Report to monitor the contribution of planning obligations towards funding Crossrail.

4.76 Funding for Crossrail is being supported through £300m being collected in accordance with the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) – Use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and a further £300m proposed through the introduction of a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy. Table 4.12 below sets out the funds raised during 2011 through the application of the Crossrail SPG by boroughs in respect of planning applications, whether referable to the Mayor or not.

4.77 These funds are being applied to the Crossrail project via a dedicated account. Progress on Crossrail has been significant during 2011 with:

- The completion of the Royal Oak portal marking the projects first tunnelling milestone
- Canary Wharf station being the first to near structural completion below ground
- The unveiling of the first of eight tunnel boring machines that will be used to construct the 21km of twin-bore (6.2m diameter) tunnels.
- Work underway across all central London station sites from Paddington to Whitechapel delivering increased passenger capacity, larger ticket halls, step-free access and new entrances & escalators.

4.78 As explained earlier, the Mayor has brought forward proposals to use the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to provide £300 million of the cost of the Crossrail project. The Mayor has agreed that CIL charging will start from 1 April 2012. Future AMRs will provide information about how much CIL is collected. The Mayor has announced his intention that there should be biennial reviews of his CIL, so that its effect (if any) on development can be assessed and any changes required made. The first of these reviews will take place in 2014, and the results will be given in the appropriate AMR.

| borough | site | Crossrail contribution | |----------|-----------------------------|------------------------| | referable| Southwark 156-172 Tooley St. | £235,000 | | | Southwark 61-63 Gt. Suffolk St. | £136,743 | | | Westminster 210-214 Piccadilly | £285,230 | | non-referable | City 52-60 Holborn Viaduct. | £33,731 | | | City 12-15 Finsbury Circus. | £180,664 | | | City 8-12 Warwick Lane. | £63,128 | | | Southwark 65 Southwark St. | £209,900 | | | Total (referable and non-referable) | £1,144,395 |

Source: Transport for London Progress on Regional Flood Risk Appraisal recommendations

4.79 The Regional Flood Risk Appraisal (RFRA) was published in October 2009 and contains 19 recommendations that are being followed up over five years. Table 4.13 provides an overview of progress at January 2012.

| No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2012 | |-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | All Thames-side planning authorities should consider in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) and put in place DPD policies to promote the setting back of development from the edge of the Thames and tidal tributaries to enable sustainable and cost effective upgrade of river walls/embankments, in line with Policy 5.12, Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) and Thames Estuary 2100 | Most boroughs are now making reasonable progress in recognising this in either their SFRAs or DPDs. | | 2 | The London boroughs of Richmond, Kingston-upon-Thames, Hounslow and Wandsworth should put in place policies to avoid development that would prejudice the implementation of increased channel capacity between Teddington Lock and Hammersmith Bridge in line with TE2100 findings | Relevant flood risk management measures are broadly reflected in Kingston, Richmond and Wandsworth, but there are no specific policies in DPDs. | | 3 | The London boroughs of Havering and Bexley should put in place policies to prevent development that would prejudice the use of Rainham/Wennington Marshes, Erith Marshes and Dartford/Crayford Marshes for emergency flood storage in line with TE2100 findings. Although outside London, Thurrock and Dartford should also consider this aspect of flood risk management | The use of these areas for emergency flood storage is not a preferred option so this requirement is no longer valid. | | 4 | Boroughs at confluences of tributary rivers with the River Thames should pay particular attention to the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risks. These are Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Greenwich, Lewisham, Wandsworth, Hounslow, Richmond and Kingston | Tidal influences are generally taken into account in the SFRA modelling addressing the interaction of fluvial and tidal flood risk at confluences. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2012 | |-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 5 | Developments all across London should reduce surface water discharge in line with the Sustainable Drainage Hierarchy set out in Policy 5.13 of the London Plan | Some major developments have achieved a high level of run-off reduction, but significant further efforts are required, particularly in relation to smaller scale developments. The introduction of SUDS Approval Body roles for London boroughs is expected in 2013 and this should mark a step change in the application of SUDS across all developments. | | 6 | Regeneration and redevelopment of London’s fluvial river corridors offer a crucial opportunity to reduce flood risk. SFRAs and policies should focus on making the most of this opportunity through appropriate location, layout and design of development as set out in PPS25 and the Thames CFMP. | SFRAs and DPD policies generally promote the use of location, layout and design of new development, including the use of SUDS, to reduce flood risk. | | 7 | Once funding is confirmed Drain London will investigate and plan for long term management of London’s surface water infrastructure in order to reduce surface water flood risk. | Surface Water Management Plans (SWMPs) have been produced for each Borough in 2011. Project is now funding specific investigations and measures to address flood risk areas, this programme will continue to March 2014. | | 8 | Organisations responsible for development with large roof areas should investigate providing additional surface water run-off storage | No specific actions yet, but progress underway in relation to surface water at Victoria Station. And the GLA will contact TfL and Network Rail regarding other stations and the NHS regarding their estate. | | 9 | Thames Water to continue the programme of addressing foul sewer flooding | Future funding reduced through Ofwat settlement, but initial work underway in relation to Counters Creek sewer in west London. | | 10 | That groundwater flood risk is kept under review | Drain London has identified areas of Indicative Potential for Elevated Groundwater within each SWMP. The Environment Agency also monitors groundwater levels and reports annually – see link below. | | 11 | Network Rail should examine the London Rail infrastructure for potential flooding locations and flood risk reduction measures. For large stations, solutions should be sought to store or disperse rainwater from heavy storms; this may involve the need for off site storage | Network Rail contacted through Drain London, GLA will follow up in 2012. | | No. | Recommendation | Progress at Jan 2012 | |-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 12 | London Underground and DLR should keep potential flood risks to their infrastructure and flood risk reduction measures under review and up to date | LU & DLR are undertaking a review in 2012. | | 13 | TfL, Highways Agency and London boroughs should continue to monitor the flood risk and flood risk reduction measures at these locations (subterranean river crossings and road underpasses – RFRA para 148) and any others with a potential flood risk | Through Drain London, but needs regular review. | | 14 | Bus operators should examine bus garages for potential flood risks and put in place remedial or mitigation measures where there is a significant risk | No specific actions yet. | | 15 | Edgware Hospital should carry out a flood risk assessment of its current premises and determine any mitigation works necessary to ensure that the hospital can continue to operate in the event of a flood on the Silk Stream | No specific actions yet. GLA will contact NHS as part of the Drain London project. | | 16 | Other hospitals in the RFRA table (para 153) should examine how they may cope in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NHS as part of the Drain London project. | | 17 | The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) should ensure that there is an emergency plan for Belmarsh Prison in the event of a major flood | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact NOMS as part of the Drain London project. | | 18 | Operators of London’s emergency services should ensure that emergency plans for flooding incidents are kept up to date and suitable cover arrangements are in place in the event of a flood effecting operational locations | Drain London outputs are informing new London Resilience Team established at City Hall. | | 19 | Operators of electricity, gas, water and sewerage utility sites should maintain an up to date assessment of the flood risk to their installations and considering the likely impacts of failure, programme any necessary protection measures, this may include secondary flood defences | No specific actions yet, but GLA will contact utility companies during 2012 and 2013. |

Source: GLA and Environment Agency

Link to Environment Agency’s Annual Groundwater level reporting: [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/34017.aspx](http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/34017.aspx) Future monitoring of SUDS

4.80 The potential benefits and feasibility of monitoring the implementation of SUDS is being considered for inclusion in future AMRs. SUDS Approval Bodies (SABs) should become established as required by the Foods and Water Act and developers will have to provide required drainage information. By then we will also have a new Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. Details about a standard that is based on London Plan policy, is meaningful and can be monitored effectively including underlying methodologies and definitions will be explored in co-operation with the Environment Agency. CHAPTER 5

OTHER DATA SOURCES CHAPTER FIVE OTHER DATA SOURCES

5.1 This AMR cannot and does not attempt to be comprehensive. There is also a significant amount of relevant data available from both the GLA and other sources. The list of references and links below should enable anyone researching these subjects access to the most up to date data.

| Briefings from the GLA Demography and Policy Analysis Group | |-------------------------------------------------------------| | Reference | Briefing Name | |-----------|---------------| | 2011 01 | London Crime: A National Picture | | 2011 02 | Claimant Count Model 2011: Technical Note | | 2011 03 | London Crime: A National Picture | | 2011 04 | Alternative Vote Referendum Results for London | | 2011 05 | A Profile of the Part-time Workforce in London | | 2011-06 | English Indices of Deprivation: 2010 A London Perspective | | 2011-07 | London Crime: A National Picture – changes over the twelve months to March 2011 | | 2011-08 | London Crime: A National Picture- changes over the Financial Year 2010/11 |

| Updates from the GLA Demography and Policy Analysis Group | |-----------------------------------------------------------| | Reference | Title | |-----------|-------| | 01-2011 | 2010 Round Demographic Projections using the SHLAA | | 02-2011 | Unemployment in London: February 2011 | | 03-2011 | Migration Indicators: February 2011 | | 04-2011 | 2010 Ethnic Group Population Projections using the SHLAA | | 05-2011 | Deprivation in London | | 06-2011 | 2011 Employment Security of Social Housing Tenants | | 07-2011 | Poverty Figures for London: 2009/2010 | | 08-2011 | Migration Indicators: May 2011 | | 09-2011 | Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income 2009/10 – A London Summary | | 10-2011 | Financial Capability – A London Summary | | 11-2011 | 2010 Mid-Year Population Estimates | | 12-2011 | Worklessness in London | | 13-2011 | Projected Demand for Places at Higher Education Institutions in London | | 14-2011 | Children in Poverty | | 15-2011 | Migration Indicators | | 16-2011 | London well-being scores at ward level | | 17-2011 | London happiness scores from the ‘Taking Part’ survey | | 18-2011 | London happiness and well-being | | 19-2011 | The Demographic implications of changes to state pension age | 5.2 A full list of publications from the Demography and Policy Analysis Group from previous years is available via the GLA’s website at: http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/publications/society/facts-and-figures

London Development Database

5.3 For more information on the London Development database either Email the LDD Team or phone 0207 983 4650.

5.4 The LDD public page is in the process of redevelopment. At present it can be found at http://ldd.london.gov.uk/LDD/LDD/welcome.do

Planning Decisions Unit

5.5 More information on the activities of the Mayor’s Planning Decisions Unit can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/strategic-planning-applications

GLA Economics reports

5.6 These are still available at http://www.london.gov.uk/gla-economics-publications

5.7 For the latest news the Mayor’s Business and Economy section can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/landing-page/business-economy

London Sustainable Development Commission

5.8 http://www.londonsdc.org/

London Energy Partnership

5.9 Full details can be found on the website http://www.lep.org.uk/

Other London data sources

Waste

5.10 The Mayor’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy can be found at http://www.london.gov.uk/publication/londons-wasted-resource-mayors-municipal-waste-management-strategy

5.11 DEFRA produces statistics on waste and recycling which can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/environment/waste/

5.12 More up to date London specific data is available on the Capital Waste Facts website http://www.capitalwastefacts.com/

Minerals (Aggregates)

5.13 Information on the London Aggregates Working Party (LAWP), including Annual Monitoring Reports, can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/london-aggregates-working-party

Waterways

5.14 The London Rivers Action Plan can be found at: http://www.therrc.co.uk/lrap.php

Transport

5.15 The latest information on The Mayor’s work on transport can be found at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/transport

5.16 Transport for London performance statistics can be found at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/publications/1482.aspx and at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/investorrelations/1458.aspx 5.17 Details on how PTAL scores are calculated can be found in http://data.london.gov.uk/documents/PTAL-methodology.pdf

5.18 A map based PTAL calculator can be found at http://webpid.elgin.gov.uk/.

5.19 The Department for Transport provides some useful data on transport at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics

Health

5.20 London Health Programmes uses health intelligence to identify health needs of Londoners and to redesign services. http://www.londonhp.nhs.uk/

5.21 London Health Observatory monitors health and healthcare in the capital. http://www.lho.org.uk/

Government data sources

Department of Education

5.22 Various data and studies on education and skills can be found at the following site: http://www.education.gov.uk/, which contains a section on Research and Statistics.

5.23 Links to a number of national reports on education provision can be found at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

5.24 Various data and studies on the environment can be found on the DEFRA site http://www.defra.gov.uk/statistics/

Department for Communities and Local Government

5.25 CLG publishes a number of statistics relating to planning at http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/245410

5.26 Specific information about London can be found on The Places Database. http://www.places.communities.gov.uk/latestnews.aspx CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AHEAD

6.1 This AMR covers a period of significant change. At national level, it saw election of a new Government with wide-ranging proposals to change the planning system, and the first expressions of this in the abolition of regional spatial strategies and introduction of neighbourhood planning together with consultation on a new National Planning Policy Framework. In London it saw the publication of the new London Plan and introduction of a new approach to planning policy implementation, of which this AMR forms an important part. At the same time, London has seen continued population growth at a time of serious economic downturn and constrained public resources.

6.2 It is at times of change and challenge that the importance of robust, evidence-based and effectively monitored strategic planning policy for London is demonstrated. This is vital if the progress shown across many of the indicators in this report is to be sustained, and even more so if the areas where further work is needed are to be addressed.

6.3 Looking forward, next year will see implementation of the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy. This is likely to be just the first of innovative new ways to use the planning system to help fund and deliver strategic infrastructure, backed up by a strengthened system of infrastructure planning underpinned by the new London Plan Implementation Plan to help ensure that growth and development can proceed sustainably in the capital. We are also likely to see publication of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, and the need to respond to the changes it will bring.

6.4 London’s history shows that it is precisely when the city faces the greatest challenges that planning has the most to offer (and the consequences when it does not happen). As this AMR makes plain, the planning system has much to contribute to Londoners’ quality of life – and there is a huge amount of activity at City Hall, in boroughs and neighbourhoods to make sure these opportunities are maximised. Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:

Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA

Telephone 020 7983 4100 Minicom 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.

If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above.

Chinese 如果需要您母語版本的此文件， 請致電以下號碼或與下列地址聯絡

Vietnamese Nếu bạn muốn có văn bản tài liệu này bằng ngôn ngữ của mình, hãy liên hệ theo số điện thoại hoặc địa chủ dưới đây.

Greek Αν θέλετε να αποκτήσετε αντίγραφο του παρόντος εγγράφου στη δική σας γλώσσα, παρακαλείστε να επικοινωνήσετε τηλεφωνικά στον αριθμό αυτό ή ταχυ- δρομικά στην παρακάτω διεύθυνση.

Hindi यदि आप इस दस्तावेज की प्रति अपनी भाषा में चाहते हैं, तो कृपया निम्नलिखित नंबर पर फोन करें अथवा नीचे दिए गये पते पर संपर्क करें

Bengali আপনি যদি আপনার ভাষায় এই দলিলের প্রতিলিপি (কপি) চান, তা হলে নীচের ফোন নম্বরে বা ঠিকানায় অনুরোধ করে যোগাযোগ করুন।

Turkish Bu belgenin kendi dilinizde hazırlanmış bir nüshasını edinmek için, lütfen aşağıdaki telefon numarasını arayınız veya adresi başvurunuz.

Urdu اگر آپ اس دستاویز کی نقل اینی زبان میس چاہتے ہیں، تو براہ کرم نیچے دیکھیں کہ یہ بر فون کریں یا دیکھیں کہ یہ بر رابطہ کریں

Arabic إذا أردت نسخة من هذه الوثيقة بلغتك، يرجى الاتصال برقم الهاتف أو مراسلة العنوان أدناء

Punjabi ਨੇ ਨਵਾਂ ਦਿਨ ਸਮਾਚਾਰ ਦੀ ਬਾਅਦ ਨਵਾਂ ਅਧਾਰੀ ਕਲਾਕਾਰ ਦਿਖਾਈ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਤੇਹਦ ਲਿਖੇ ਲੇਖ ਦੇ ਹੋਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਸਾ ਤੇਹਦ ਲਿਖੇ ਪੈਦਾ ਦੇ ਉਤਪਾਦ ਵਾਲੇ।

Gujarati શ્રી તમને આ દસ્તાવેજની નકલ તમારી ભાષામાં શોધી લાવવી તો, કૃપા કરીએ આફાલ નંબર 1152 ઉપર કોણ કરી અથવા નીચેના સરનામે સંપર્ક કરો.